Soviet X Planes

Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston OBE FRAeS
Midland Publishing
Soviet X-Planes
Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston, 2000.
All illustrations supplied via authors unless
indicated otherwise.
ISBN 1 85780 099 0
First published in 2000 by
Midland Publishing
24 The Hollow, Earl Shilton,
Leicester, LE9 7NA, England.
Tel: 01455 847 815 Fax: 01455 841 805
Midland Publishing is an imprint of
Ian Allan Publishing Limited.
North America trade distribution by:
Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc.
11605 Kost Dam Road
North Branch, MN 55056, USA
Tel: 651 583 3239 Fax: 651 583 2023
Toll free telephone: 800 895 4585
Worldwide distribution (except North America):

Midland Counties Publications
Unit 3 Maizefield, Hinckley Fields
Hinckley, Leics. LE10 1YF, England
Tel: 01455 233 747 Fax: 01455 233737
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical or photo-copied,
recorded or otherwise, without the written
permission of the copyright owners.
Design concept and editorial layout
Midland Publishing and
Stephen Thompson Associates.
Printed by Ian Allan Printing Limited
Riverdene Business Park, Molesey Road
Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG, England.
Title page:
A view of the new Mikoyan 1.44.
SOVIET X-PLANES
Contents
Glossary
Notes
Introduction
4
5
6
Alekseyev I-218
7
Antonov LEM-2
9
Antonov A-40, KT
11
Antonov M
11
Antonov 181
13
Arkhangelskiy BSh/M-V
14
Bartini Stal'-6, El, and Stal'-8
14
Bartini Stal'-7
17
Bartini WA-14
19
Belyayev Babochka
22
Belyayev DB-LK
23
Belyayev FBI
25
Belyayev 370, EOI
25
Bereznyak-Isayev BI
27
BerievS-13
29
BICh-3
30
BICH-7A
31
BICh-8
32
BICh-ll,RP-l
32
BICh-14
34
BICh-16
35
BICh-17
35
BICh-18 Muskulyot
36
BICh-20 Pionyer
37
BICh-21,SG-l
38
BICh-22, Che-22
39
BICh-24, (Che-24)
40
BICh-26, (Che-26)
40
BICh jet project
41
BisnovatSK
41
BOK-1,SS
44
BOK-2, RK
46
BOK-5
46
BOK-7, K-17
48
BOK-8
48
BOK-11
48
Bolkhovitinov S
49
Chetverikov SPL
51
Ejection-seat Test-beds
53
Experimental landing gears
55
Florov 4302
56
Grigorovich I-Z
57
Grokhovskii G-31, Yakob Alksnis, Strekoza 59
Grokhovskii G-37, ULK
61
Grushin Sh-Tandem, MAI-3
62
Gudkov Gu-1
64
Ilyushin IL-20
65
Kalinin K-7
66
Kalinin K-12
69
Kamov Ka-22
72
Kharkov KhAI Aviavnito 3, Sergei Kirov . . . 74
Kharkov KhAI-4
75
Kharkov KhAI-2
76
Kostikov 302, Ko-3
77
Korolyov RP-318-1
80
Kozlov PS
82
Kozlov El
83
LaGG-3/2 VRD
84
Lavochkin La-7PVRD and La-9RD
84
Lavochkin La-7R and '120R'
86
Lavochkin '164' (La-126PVRD) and
'138' (130PVRD-430)
87
MAI EMAI-1
89
MAI-62 and MAI-63
90
Mikhel'son MP
91
MiG-8 Utka
92
MiG I-250, MiG-13, N
94
MiG I-270, Zh
96
MiG-9L, FK
98
MiG-15 Experimental Versions
100
101
103
MiG Experimental Heavy Interceptors . . . 106
110
M1G-23PD, 23-01
118
MiG 105-11
120
MiG 1.44
121
Molniya Buran BTS-002
125
Moskalyov SAM-4 Sigma
126
Moskalyov SAM-6
127
128
Moskalyov SAM-9 Strela
129
Moskalyov SAM-13
130
Moskalyov SAM-29, RM-1
131
Myasishchev M-50 and M-52
131
Myasishchev 3M-T and VM-T Atlant
134
Myasishchev M-17 Stratosfera
136
Myasishchev M-55 Geofizka
138
NIAILK-1
139
NIAIRK, LIG-7
140
NIAI RK-I, RK-800
141
NikitinPSN
143
Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1
145
146
147
OOSStal'-5
148
Petlyakov Pe-2 experimental versions . . . 149
Petlyakov Pe-8 experimental versions . . . 150
Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 with GK

151
Polikarpov I-152/DM-2 and I-153/DM-4 .. 152
Polikarpov Malyutka
153
Rafaelyants Turbolyot
154
Sukhoi Su-5,I-107
155
SukhoiSu-7R
156
Sukhoi Su-17, R
157
Sukhoi T-3 and PT-7
158
Sukhoi T-49
162
Sukhoi P-l
164
Sukhoi T-37
166
Sukhoi T-58VD
168
Sukhoi S-22I
169
Sukhoi T-4, 100
170
Sukhoi 100L
173
Sukhoi 100LDU
174
Sukhoi 02-10, or L02-10
175
Sukhoi T6-1
176
Sukhoi T-10
178
Sukhoi P-42
180
Sukhoi T10-24
180
Sukhoi Su-37
181
Sukhoi S-37 Berkut
182
TsybinTs-l,LL
185
TsybinRS
187
Tsybin2RS
188
TsybinRSR
189
TsybinNM-1
190
Tsybin RSR, R-020
191
Tsybin RSR Derivatives
192
Tupolev ANT-23,I-12
193
Tupolev ANT-29, DIP
195
Tupolev ANT-46, DI-8
197
Tupolev Tu-2 Experimental Versions . . . . 198
Tupolev Tu-4 Experimental Versions . . . . 199
Tupolev Tu-16 Experimental Versions . . . 200
Tupolev Tu-155
201
Experimental Test-beds
202
Vakhmistrov Zveno
205
Yakovlev Experimental Piston-Engined
Fighters
208
Yakovlev Experimental Jet Fighters
211
Type 346
216
EF126
218
EF131
219
Type 140
221
Type 150
223
Soviet X-Planes in Colour..
.. 225
SOVIET X-PLANES
Glossary
ADD
Aviatsiya Dal'nevo Deistviya

- Long Range Air Arm.
A-VMF Aviatsiya Voenno-Morskovo Flota
- Naval Air Force.
B
Bombardirovshchik - as a prefix, bomber.
BB
Blizhnii Bombardirovshchik
- as a prefix, short range bomber.
BBS
Blizhny bombardirovshchik, skorostnoy
- short range bomber, high speed.
bis
as a suffix, literally from the French or Latin
'again' or encore, more practically, a
rethought or developed version, or even
Mk.2. Designation used by only a few OKBs;
e.g. MiG with their MiG-21 jet.
BOK Byuro Osobykh Konstruktsii
- Bureau of Special Design.
BSh
Bronirovanny Shturmovik
- armoured attack aircraft.
cg
Centre of Gravity.
D
Dalny - as a suffix, long range.
DB
Dalny Bombardirovshchik - long range bomber.
GKAT Gosudarstvenny Komitet Aviatsionnoi
Teknniki - State Committee for Aviation
Equipment.
GKO
Gosudarstvenny Komitet Oborony
- State Committee for Defence.
GUAP Glavnoye Upravleniye Aviatsionnoi
Promysh-lennosti - Chief Directorate of
Aircraft Industry.
GUGVF Main directorate of Civil Aviation.
I
Istrebitel - as a prefix, fighter, or literally
'destroyer' - see also I - Izdelie.
I
Izdelie - as a prefix, product, or item, used
by an 0KB to denominate an airframe prior
to acceptance, see also I - Istrebitel.
KhAI
Kharkovskii Aviatsionny Institut
- Kharkov Aviation Institute.
KOSOS Konstruktorskii Otdel Opytnovo
Samolyotostroeniya
- Experimental Aircraft Design Section.
LB-S Legky bombardirovshchik-sparka
- light bomber, two-seater.
LII
Letno-Issledovatel'skii Institut - Ministry of
Aviation Industry Flight Research Institute.
Nil
Nauchno Issledovatel'skii Institut
- scientific and research institute (of WS).
MAI Moskovskii Aviatsionii Institut Sergo
Ordjonitidze - Moscow Aviation Institute
Sergo Ordjonitidze.
NKAP Narodny Komissariat Aviatsionnoi
Promyshlennosti - State Commissariat for
the Aviation Industry People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry.
4
NKVD Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del

- People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs,
forerunner of the KGB.
OKB Opytnoye Konstruktorskoye Byuro
- experimental construction bureau.
ON
Osobogo Naznacheniya - as a suffix,
personal assignment or special use.
PB
Pikiruyushchii Bombardirovshchik
- as a suffix, dive bomber.
RKKA Red Army.
S
Skorostnoy - as a prefix or suffix, high speed.
SB
Skorostnoy Bombardirovshchik
- high speed bomber.
ShKAS Shpitalny-Komaritski Aviatsionny
Skorostrelny - rapid-firing aircraft machine
gun (designed by Shpitalny and Komaritski).
ShVAK Shpitalny-Vladimirov Aviatsionnaya
Krupnokalibernaya - large calibre aircraft
cannon (design by Shpitalny and Vladimirov).
SNII GVF scientific test institute.
SPB Skorostnoy Pikiruyuschy Bombardirovshchik
- high speed dive bomber, also denominate
the TB-3/Polikarpov Zveno composite.
T Torpedonosyets, as a suffix, torpedo.
T Tyazhelovooruzhenny - suffix, heavily armed.
TB
Tyazhyoly Bombardirovshchik
- heavy bomber.
TsAGI Tsentral'nyi Aerogidrodynamichesky
Institut - Central Aerodynamic and
Hydrodynamic Institute.
TsIAM Tsentral'noye Institut Aviatsionnogo Motorostoeniya - Central Institute of Aviation Motors.
TsKB Tsentral'noye Konstruktorskoye Byuro central, ie state, design bureau.
WS
Voenno-vozdushniye Sily - air forces of USSR.
ZOK Factory for GVF experimental constructions.
Airframe and Engine Design Bureaux

Accepted abbreviations to denote airframe
(surname only used for the abbreviation) or
engine design (first name and surname) origin are as follows:
AM Alexander Mikulin
Ar
Arkhangelsky, Aleksandr
ACh Aleksei Charomskii
ASh
Arkadi Shvetsov
Be
Beriev, G M
Gr
Grushin, Pyotr
Gu
Gudkov, Mikhail (see also LaGG)
II
Ilyushin, Sergei (we have chosen to use
the abbreviation IL in this work, to avoid
confusion with the roman numeral II).
Ka
Kamov, Nikolai
La
Lavochkin, Semyon
LaG
Lavochkin and Gorbunov
LaGG Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov
(see also Gu)
MiG Mikoyan, Artyom and Gurevich, Mikhail
Pe
Petlyakov, Vladimir
Po
Polikarpov, Nikolay - but only applied to
the U-2, which became the Po-2.
Su
Sukhoi, Pavel
Ta
Tairov, Vsevolod
Tu
Tupolev, Andrei
VD
Viktor Dobrynin
VK
Vladimir Klimov
Yak
Yakovlev, Alexander
Yer
Yermolayev, Vladimir
SOVIET X-PlANES
Notes
Russian Language and Transliteration

Russian is a version of the Slavonic family of
languages, more exactly part of the so-called
'Eastern' Slavonic grouping, including Russian,
White Russian and Ukrainian. As such it uses
the Cyrillic alphabet, which is in turn largely
based upon that of the Greeks.
The language is phonetic - pronounced as
written, or 'as seen'. Translating into or from
English gives rise to many problems and the
vast majority of these arise because English is
not a straightforward language, offering many
pitfalls of pronunciation!
Accordingly, Russian words must be translated through into a phonetic form of English
and this can lead to different ways of helping
the reader pronounce what he or she sees.
Every effort has been made to standardise
this, but inevitably variations will creep in.
While reading from source to source this
might seem confusing and/or inaccurate but
it is the name as pronounced that is the constancy, not the spelling of that pronunciation!
The 20th letter of the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet looks very much like a 'Y' but is pronounced as a 'U' as in the word 'rule'.
Another example, though not taken up in
this work, is the train of thought that Russian
words ending in 'y' are perhaps better spelt
out as 'yi' to underline the pronunciation, but
it is felt that most Western speakers would
have problems getting their tongues around
this!
This is a good example of the sort of problem that some Western sources have suffered from in the past (and occasionally some
get regurgitated even today) when they make
the mental leap about what they see approximating to an English letter.
Measurements
In the narrative, all measurements are given in
Imperial figures (of British FPSR - foot, pound,
second, Rankine) and then decimal units
(or SI - Systme International d'Units, established in 1960) second in brackets. The states
that comprised the Soviet Union embraced
the decimal system from the earliest days, although it should be noted that power was
measured up to the Great Patriotic War, and
beyond, using the established Western horsepower measurement.
The following explanations may help:
aspect ratio wingspan and chord expressed as a
ratio. Low aspect ratio, short, stubby wing;
high aspect ratio, long, narrow wing.
ft
feet - length, multiply by 0.305 to get
metres (m). For height measurements
involving service ceilings and cruise
heights, the figure has been 'rounded'.
ft2
square feet - area, multiply by 0.093
to get square metres (m2).
fuel
measured in both gallons/litres
and pounds/kilograms.
The specific gravity (sg) of Soviet fuel
varied considerably during the War
and conversions from volume to weight
and vice versa are impossible without
knowing the sg of the fuel at the time.
gallon Imperial (or UK) gallon, multiply by 4.546
to get litres. (500 Imperial gallons
equal 600 US gallons.)
hp
horsepower - power, measurement
of power for piston engines.
Multiply by 0.746 to get kilowatts (kW).
kg
kilogram - weight, multiply by 2.205
to get pounds (Ib).
kg/cm2 kilogram per square centimetre
- force or pressure, multiply by 14.224
to get pounds per square inch (lb/in2).
km
kilometre - length, multiply by 0.621
to get miles.
km/h kilometres per hour - velocity,
multiply by 0.621 to get miles per
hour (mph).
kW
kilowatt - power, measurement
of power for piston engines.
Multiply by 1.341 to get horse power.
Ib
pound - weight, multiply by 0.454 to
get kilograms (kg). Also used for the
force measurement of turbojet engines,
with the same conversion factor,
as pounds of static thrust.
lb/ft2
litre
m
mile
m2
mm
mph
pounds per square foot - force or pressure,

multiply by 4.882 to get kilograms per
square metre (kg/m2).
volume, multiply by 0.219 to get
Imperial (or UK) gallons.
metre - length, multiply by 3.28
to get feet (ft).
Imperial length, multiply by 1.609
to get kilometres (km).
square metre - area, multiply by 10.764
to get square feet (ft2)
millimetre - length, the bore of guns is
traditionally a decimal measure (eg 30mm)
and no Imperial conversion is given.
miles per hour - velocity, multiply by 1.609
to get kilometres per hour (km/h).
Design and Illustration considerations

In this work we have utilised our well-proven
format, aiming as always to provide a high
level of readability and design.
A conscious decision was made to include
peripheral details where they appear on the
original illustrations; photographs have not
been printed across the fold and cropping has
been kept to an absolute minimum.
Unfortunately, in this work, many of the
photographs received were copies of those
from official sources and proved to be lacking
in definition and tonal range. Although no effort has been spared to achieve the highest
standard of reproduction, priority for inclusion has, of necessity, been given to historical
significance over technical perfection.
SOVIET X-PLANES
Introduction
or over 70 years from 1918 the world's

largest country was tightly controlled by a
tiny group of elderly men in The Kremlin, in
Moscow. Their power was absolute. They
could take giant decisions, and so could
make giant mistakes. They also sometimes
found they had to choose between diametrically opposed objectives. While on the one
hand aviation was a marvellous instrument
for propaganda, trumpeting the achievements of the Soviet Union, the underlying
theme of Soviet society was of rigid secrecy.
Thus, when The Great Patriotic War began
on 22nd June 1941 the outside world knew
very little about Soviet aircraft. The knowledge
was confined largely to the mass-produced
Polikarpov biplane fighters and Tupolev
monoplane bombers, and to the ANT-25
monoplane designed to break world distance
records. Only very gradually did it become
apparent that the austere and sombre Land of
the Soviets (this was the name of a recordbreaking bomber) was home to an incredible
diversity of aircraft.
Other countries - the USA, France, Britain,
Italy and increasingly Germany - had numerous aircraft companies from which flowed
many hundreds of different types of aircraft.
They also had individuals who sometimes
managed to create aircraft and even form tiny
companies, but the aircraft were invariably
conventional lightplanes aimed at the private
owner. Few people in what became called
The West' would have dreamed that in Stalin's realm individuals could even set their
sights on high-powered fast aircraft bristling
with strange ideas.
At the same time, the Soviet Union was far

from being the earthly paradise that was originally intended. It is said that power corrupts,
and the record shows that anyone who 'stuck
his head above the parapet' was likely to get
it cut off. It seems incredible that in 1936-40
Stalin should have been able to unleash what
was called The Terror, in which anyone who
might have posed the slightest threat - for example, any senior officer in any of the armed
forces - was simply put through a show trial
on invented charges and shot.
In the aircraft industry, time after time people who made mistakes, or in some way fell
foul of someone more senior, were simply
dismissed or even imprisoned (and in a few
cases, executed). It is beyond question that
this omnipresent air of repression did much
to counter the natural enthusiasm of countless workers who longed for their country to
be the greatest on Earth, and a leader in advanced technology. When one reads what
happened it seems remarkable that so many
diverse aircraft actually got built.
This book is the most comprehensive attempt yet to collect the stories of the more
important of these X-Planes (experimental
aircraft) into one volume. Of course, some of
the strange flying machines featured were
built after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but
we did not want a ponderous title. Translation
of the Communist state into an intensely
capitalist one has tended to concentrate the
mind wonderfully. Whereas 60 years ago
Soviet designers could obtain funds for often
bizarre ideas which a hard-nosed financial
director would have considered an almost
certain non-starter, today Ivan at his modern

keyboard and screen knows that if he gets it
wrong his shaky firm will go out of business.
Ironically, instead of being a closely guarded secret, the experimental aircraft and projects of the Soviet Union are today better
documented than those of many Western
companies. The process of rationalization
has seen almost all the famous names of the
aircraft industries of the UK, USA and France
disappear. In many cases, and especially in
the UK, their irreplaceable archives have
been wantonly destroyed, as being of no interest to current business. We may never
know what strange things their designers
drew on paper but never saw built. In contrast, the Soviet Union never destroyed anything, unless there was a political reason for
doing so. Accordingly, though this book concentrates on hardware, it also includes many
projects which were built but never flew, and
even a few which never got off the proverbial
drawing board.
As in several previous books, Yefim Gordon
provided much information and most of the
illustrations while Bill Gunston wrote the text
and put the package together. The in-flight
photograph of the MiG 1.44 featured on the
jacket is from a Mikoyan video. A special vote
of thanks is due to Nigel Eastaway and the
Russian Aviation Research Trust who provided the remainder of the visual images.
Sukhoi S-37 experimental fighter.
A L E K S E Y E V I-2 1 8
SOVIET X-PLANES
Arranged principally in alphabetical order
AlekseyevI-218
Purpose: To provide a high-performance
Shturmovik, armoured ground-attack
aircraft.
Design Bureau: Semyon Mikhailovich
Alekseyev OKB-21, at Gorkii.
Born in 1909, Alekseyev graduated from MAI
in 1937, and became one of the principal designers in the OKB of S A Lavochkin. Responsible for major features of the LaGG-3 and
La-5 family of fighters, he was head of detail
design on the derived La-7 and La-9. In 1946
he was able to open his own design bureau.
He at once concentrated on twin-jet fighters
with nosewheel landing gear, getting the
I-211 into flight test on 13th October 1947.

Whilst working on derived aircraft with more
powerful engines and swept wings, he worked
in parallel on a family of multirole groundattack aircraft.
The first of these was the I-218, or I-218-1.
For various reasons, the most important
being the need for long endurance at low altitude, Alekseyev adopted a powerful piston
engine. He adopted a pusher layout, with the
tail carried on twin booms.
A single prototype was completed in summer 1948, but in August of that year OKB-21
was closed. (A contributory factor was Yakovlev's scathing comment that Alekseyev's jet
fighters were copies of the Me 262.) At closure

three derived aircraft were on the drawing
board. The I-218-Ib (I-219) had a revised crew
compartment, tailwheel landing gears and
swept vertical tails. The I-218-11 (I-221) was an
enlarged aircraft with a conventional fuselage
and tail, powered by a Lyul'ka TR-3 turbojet,
which was being developed to give 4,600kg
(10,141 Ib) thrust. The I-218-III (I-220) was a
variation on the 218-11 with a very powerful
piston engine (he hoped to get a Dobrynin
VD-4 of 4,000hp, as used in the Tu-85 but without the turbo). Alekseyev was sent to CAHI
(TsAGI) and then as Chief Constructor to
the OKB-1 team of former German (mainly
Alekseyev I-218
ALEKSEYEV
I-218
I-218 inboard profile
Junkers) engineers to produce the Type 150,

described later under OKB-1.
No detailed documents have been discovered, but the I-218 was a modern all-metal
stressed-skin aircraft designed to a high
(fighter type) load factor. The wing comprised a centre section and outer panels
joined immediately outboard of the tail
booms. It was tapered on the leading edge
only, and on the trailing edge were fitted outboard ailerons and six sections of area-increasing flap. The tail booms projected far
in front of the wing, and carried a conventional twin-finned tail with a fixed tailplane
joining the fins just above the centreline of the
propeller.
The forward fuselage contained a compartment for the pilot and for the aft-facing
gunner. Like some highly-stressed parts of
the airframe this was made of the new 30KhGSNA chrome-nickel steel, and it was
thick enough to form a 'bathtub' to protect
against armour-piercing shells of 20mm calibre. The windows were very thick multilayer
glass/plastics slabs. The engine, mounted on
the wing, was a Dobrynin VM-251 (in effect,

half a VD-4, with three banks each of four
cylinders) rated at 2,000hp. It drove an AV-28
contra-rotating propeller arranged for pusher
propulsion, comprising two three-blade units
each of 3.6m (11ft l0in) diameter.
The I-218 was intended to have heavy forward-firing armament, such as four NR-23
guns each with 150 rounds or two N-57 (30
rounds each) and two N-37 (40 rounds each).
In addition provision was to be made for up to
1,500kg (3,307 Ib) of bombs or other stores,
carried mainly under the fuselage, or six
132mm (5.2in) rockets or 16 RS-82 rockets
carried under the wings.
For defence, the backseater could operate
a remotely-sighted system controlling an
NR-23 cannon on the outer side of each tail
boom. Each of these powerful guns was fed
from a 120-round magazine, and was mounted in a powered barbette with angular limits
of 25 vertically and 50 outwards. Avionics
included 12RSU-10 radio, RPKO-10M radiocompass, RV-2 radar altimeter and SPU-5
intercom.
Though the I-218 was built there is no positive evidence that it flew, apart from the fact
that the specification does not include the
word 'estimated' for the flight performance.
The fact is, in 1948 such aircraft were regarded as obsolescent. A rival, also abandoned,
was the IL-20, described later.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
16.43m
13.88m
45m 2
53 ft M in
45 ft &A in
484.4ft2
Weights (unknown except)

Normal loaded weight
9,000kg
Maximum
10,500kg
1 9,840 Ib
23,1 48 Ib
Performance
Max speed, at sea level
at 2,000m (6,562 ft)
Take-off run
Landing run
Time to reach 5,000 m
Service ceiling
Range
289 mph
329 mph
1,706ft
1,969ft
16,400ft
21,650ft
746 miles
465km/h
530km/h
520m
600m
5min
6,000 m
1,200km
Above: I-218 model.
Left: Alekseyev's ground-attack aircraft projects, from the top -I-218-IB,

I-218-IIandI-218-III.
ANTONOV LEM-2
Antonov LEM-2
Purpose: To investigate the maximum load
that could be carried by an aeroplane
powered by a single M-l 1 engine.
Rivals included the Grokhovskii G-31 and
KhAI-3, both described later.
Design Bureau: Oleg K Antonov, Kiev.
The idea was that of L E Malinovskii, Director
of the Civil Aviation Scientific-Technical Institute (hence the designation). AviAvnito and
Osoaviakhim (the Society of Friends of Aviation and the Chemical Industry) provided
funds in 1936, enabling the Kiev (Ukraine)
constructor to create his first powered aircraft. The single example built was given the
OKB designation of OKA-33, because it was
their 33rd design. The flight-test programme
was opened by test pilot N I Ferosyev on 20th
April 1937. Results were satisfactory.
The LEM-2 was predictably almost a flying
wing, based on the aerodynamics of Prof
V N Belyayev, with a PZ-2 aerofoil modified
from the common CAHI (TsAGI) R-ll. The
M-l 1 five-cylinder radial, rated at l00hp, was
mounted on the front in a long-chord cowl-
ing, driving a two-blade carved-wood propeller of the type mass-produced for the U-2
(later called Po-2). Construction was almost
entirely wood, with ply skins of varying thickness. The wing comprised a centre section
and two outer panels with long-span but narrow ailerons. The inboard part of the wing
had a chord of 6.7m (22ft) and so was deep
enough (1.47m, 4ft 1 0in) to house the payload
of 1,280kg (2,822 Ib). The payload compartment between the spars measured 2.4 x 1.5 x
1.2m (7'101/2"x4'll"x3'll"). In the LEM-2
built the pilot was the only occupant, though
it was the intention that a production aircraft
should have provision for 11 passenger seats.
Access to the main payload space was to be
via large doors in the leading edge ahead of
the front spar, but these were absent from the
LEM-2 built. There was also a door in the
upper surface behind the cockpit. The twinfinned tail was carried on two upswept
booms attached at the extremities of the wing
centre section. Landing gears comprised two
main wheels (the intended spats were never
fitted) attached to the centre-section end ribs,
and a skid under the trailing edge.

Development of aircraft in this class was
soon discontinued, it being decided they
were of limited practical use. In fact, especially with slightly more power, they could
have been used in the USSR in large numbers
in huge regions devoid of roads and railways.
Dimensions
Span
27.6m
90 ft &/> in
10.6m
81.4m 2
34 ft 9M in
Weight empty
Maximum loaded
1,640kg
2,920 kg
3,61 6 Ib
6,437 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
117km/h
72.7 mph
l00km/h
1,500m
900km
62 mph
Length
Wing area
876ft 2
Weights
Cruising speed
Service ceiling
Intended range
4,920ft
559 miles
Antonov LEM-2
ANTONOV LEM-2
Two views of the LEM-2, OKA-33.
Front and side views of KT assembled on tank.
10
A N T O N O V A-40, KT / A N T O N O V
Antonov A-40, KT
Purpose: KT, Kryl'ya Tanka, flying tank, a
means for delivering armoured vehicles to
difficult locations by fitting them with wings.
Design Bureau: Oleg Konstantinovich
Antonov, at Kiev.
From 1932 the Soviet high command studied
all aspects of the new subject of airborne warfare, including parachute troops and every
kind of aerial close support of armies. One
novel concept was fitting wings (with or without propulsion) to an armoured vehicle. Simple tests were carried out with small cars and
trucks, converted into gliders and towed by
such aircraft as the R-5 and (it is believed) a
TB-1. There was even a project to fit wings to
a T-34, weighing 32 tonnes, using a pair of
ANT-20b/s as tugs !
The KT was the only purpose-designed
winged tank actually to be tested. The chosen
tank was the T-60, specially designed for airborne forces. Antonov designed a large biplane glider and flight controls to fit over the
tank. The work was delayed by the German
invasion of 22nd June 1941, but the prototype
was ready for test in early 1942. The selected

pilot, S N Anokhin, did a quick course in tank
driving and was then towed off by a TB-3.
He managed to land without injuring himself
or overturning the tank, which was drivable
afterwards.
The glider was officially designated A-T,
and A-40 by the Antonov OKB. It comprised
rectangular biplane wings joined by vertical
and diagonal struts with wire bracing. Both
wings were fitted with ailerons, joined by vertical struts. The upper wing also had two
spoiler airbrakes, while the lower wing had
full-span flaps which the pilot (who was the
tank driver) could pull down manually prior
to the landing. At the rear was the twin-finned
semi-biplane tail, attached by two braced
booms. Construction was of wood, mainly
spruce. The covering was fabric, with plywood over the booms and some other areas.
The airframe was lifted by crane over the tank
and secured by latches. The towrope from
the tug was attached to the tank, and cast off
by the tank driver when close to the target.
The intention was that he should glide down
steeply, lower the flaps and then, when about

to touch the ground, pull a lever to jettison the
glider portion. The tank would then be left
ready for action. The tank's tracks were driven through an overdrive top gear to assist
take-off and smooth the landing.
Though the single test flight was successful, Anokhin, an outstandingly skilled pilot,
found his task extremely tricky. He doubted
the ability of ordinary 'tankers' to fly the
loaded tank and bring it down to a successful
landing. In any case, the real need was to fly
in T-34s, and there seemed to be no practical
way of doing this.
Dimensions
Span
Length, excluding tank
Wing area
18.0m
12.06m
85.8m2
59 ft3/ in
39ft6 3 / 4 in
923.6ft2
Weights
Weight (airframe)
with T-60
2,004 kg
7,804 kg
4,41 8 Ib
1 7,205 Ib
Performance
Towing speed
120km/h
74.6 mph
Antonov M
Purpose: To create a superior jet fighter.
Design Bureau: No 153, Oleg K Antonov, Novosibirsk.
In 1945 Antonov was impressed by the German He 162, and considered it a good way to produce a simple fighter for rough-field use powered by a single turbojet. In spring 1947 his staff had completed the
design of the SKh (later designated An-2), and he quickly schemed a
fighter to be powered by a single RD-10 (Soviet-made Junkers Jumo
004B) above the fuselage. He tested a tunnel model, but on 6th April
1947 received an instruction from NKAP (the state commissariat for
aviation industry) to design a fighter with two RD-lOs. By this time he
had recognized that jet engines not only made possible unconventional new configurations for fighters but might even demand them.
He quickly roughed out the Masha, abbreviated as the 'M'. A A Batumov and V A Dominikovskiy were appointed chief designers, with
11 Yegorychev in charge of construction. Design was virtually complete when in late 1947 the NKAP instructed OKB-153 to redesign the
aircraft to use the RD-45, the Soviet-built copy of the Rolls-Royce Nene.
Apart from the forward fuselage, the redesign was total. Following
tunnel testing of models, and free-flight testing of the E-153 (which
was used as both a detailed full-scale wooden mock-up and a towed
glider), construction of the M prototype went ahead rapidly. In July
1948, when the prototype was almost ready, and Mark L Gallai was
about to begin flight testing, the project was cancelled. The La, MiG
and Yak jet fighters were thought sufficient. (In 1953 Antonov again
schemed a jet fighter, this time a tailed delta powered by an AL-7F, but
it remained on paper.)
The original 1947 form of the Masha featured side inlets to the RD10 engines buried in the thick central part of the wing. Outboard were
Model of the 1947 jet fighter project.
broad wings tapered on the leading edge with squared-off tips carrying swept fins and rudders. Beyond these were small forward-swept
ailerons. The main wing had leading-edge flaps and aft spoilers. Having studied side doors to the cockpit, Antonov settled for a sliding
canopy. Armament comprised two VYa-23 and two B-20. This armament remained unchanged in the M actually built, which had a single
RD-45, rated at 2,270kg (5,000 Ib) fed by cheek inlets. The wing was redesigned as a round-tipped delta, with the swept vertical tails positioned between two pairs of tabbed elevons.
Antonov considered that the final M ought to have been allowed to
fly. He considered it would have dramatically outmanoeuvred any
contemporary competition, and could later have had radar and a
more powerful engine.
11
ANTONOV M
Dimensions (data 194 7)

Span
Length
Dimensions (data 1948)
Span
Length
No other data.
The E-153 glider.
Original scheme for M, 1947
Definitive M, 1948
12
10.8m
10.6m
35 ft 5 in
34 ft 914 in
9.3m
10.64m
30 ft &/, in
34 ft \Q3/, in
A N T O N O V 1 81
Antonov 181
Purpose: To explore the Custer channelwing concept.
Design Bureau: Oleg K Antonov, Kiev,
Ukraine.
Little is known about this research aircraft,
other than what could be gleaned by walking
round it on 18th August 1990 and reading the
accompanying placard. Its one public outing
was on Soviet Day of Aviation, and the venue
the airfield at the village of Gastomel, near
Kiev. The configuration was instantly recognisable as being that of the 'channel-wing' aircraft proposed by American W R Custer in
the mid-1950s. The key factor of this concept
was powered lift gained by confining the propeller slipstream in a 180 half-barrel of aerofoil profile. Custer claimed the ability to take
off and climb almost vertically, or to hover,
whilst retaining full forward speed capability.
Resurrecting the Custer concept was astonishing, as the claims for the channel-wing aircraft were soon shown to be nonsense, and
instead of 1958 being the start of mass-production of the CCW-5 series version the
whole thing faded from view. It was thus totally unexpected when the '181' appeared at
an Open Day hosted by the Antonov OKB. It
was not just parked on the grass but tied
down on a trailer. Visitors were able to climb
on to this and study the aircraft intimately, but
there was nobody to answer questions.
The '181' was dominated by its two Custerinspired channel wings, with aerofoil lifting
surfaces curved round under the propellers
so that they were washed by the slipstream.
Whereas the Custer CCW-5 had pusher propellers above the trailing edge, the Antonov
aircraft had tractor propellers above the leading edge. They were driven via shafts and
gears by a 210hp Czech M-337A six-cylinder
aircooled piston engine. Apart from this the
aircraft appeared conventional, though the
tail was of 'butterfly' configuration to keep it
out of the slipstream, and of exceptional size
in order to remain effective at very low airspeeds. Beyond the channel wings were
small outer wings with ailerons. The nose
was fighter-like, with a large canopy over the
side-by-side cockpit, and the tricycle landing
gear was fixed. The nose carried a long instrumentation boom, and there was a dorsal
antenna, presumably for telemetry. The
whole aircraft was beautifully finished, and
painted in house colours with the Antonov
logo. It bore Soviet flags on the fins, and civil
registration SSSR-190101.
Construction of this research aircraft must

have been preceded by testing of models.
These must have given encouraging results,
which were not reproduced in the '181'. Coauthor Gunston asked Antonov leaders about
the '181' and was told that it had been a serious project, but perhaps ought not to have
been put on view.
Dimensions
Span
7.3m
Length
7.31m
Wing area (total projected) 7.0m 2
23 ft m in
23 ft 11% in
75ft 2
Weights
Weight loaded (normal)
(maximum)
820kg
900kg
l,8081b
l,9841b
Performance
Maximum speed (placard)
Range (placard)
820 km/h
750km
510 mph
466 miles
Three photographs of the An-181
13
A R K H A N G E L S K I Y BSH/M-V B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , E l A N D STAL'-S
Arkhangelskiy BSh/M-V
Purpose: To destroy enemy armour.
Design Bureau: A A Arkhangelskiy (Tupolev
aide), with G M Mozharovskiy and
IV Venevidov, Factory No 32, Moscow.
The idea was that of Mozharovskiy-Venevidov, who called their project the Kombain
(combine) because of its versatility. They
were long-time specialists in aircraft armament, among other things being responsible
for all the early gun turrets in the Soviet Union.
Arkhangelskiy increased their political power
and got them a separate design office and
factory for what became called the BSh (armoured assaulter, the same designation as
the Ilyushin Stormovik) and also KABV (combined artillery-bomber weapon). The eskiznyi proekt (sketch project) was submitted on
29th December 1940, long-lead materials
were sanctioned on 25th January 1941 and
the project was confirmed at the NIl-WS by
AIFilin on 12th March 1941. Despite being
(on paper) superior, it was terminated in the
evacuation of the designers from Moscow to
Kirov later in 1941, all effort being put into the
Ilyushin aircraft (which was built in greater
numbers than any other aircraft in history).
The whole emphasis in the M-V project was
giving the pilot (the only occupant) the best
possible view ahead over the nose. Whereas
the engine of the IL-2 Sturmovik blocked off

the view at a downwards angle of 8, the M-V
aircraft gave the pilot a downwards view of
30. This is because the engine (the l,625hp
AM-38, the same as the IL-2) was behind the
cockpit. The tail was carried on twin booms
and the landing gear was of the then-novel
nosewheel type. Many armament schemes
were planned, including one Taubin 23mm
gun and four ShKAS, or four ShVAK, all
mounted on pivots to fire diagonally down.
Up to 500kg of bombs could also be carried,
mainly to comprise AO-20 or AO-25 fragmentation bomblets.
On the basis of written evidence this aircraft would have been a better tank killer than
the Ilyushin machine. The drawback was that
when the Ilyushin suffered heavy attrition

from German fighters a backseater was put in
to defend it, and this would have been difficult with the BSh/M-V.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
14m
11.26m
27.0m 2
45 ft 11 in
36 ft 11 in
290.6ft2
Weights
Empty
Maximum loaded
3,689kg
5,130kg
8,1331b
1 1,310 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Time to climb to 1, 3, 5 km
Minimum landing speed
532 km/h
331 mph
4.8,9.7, 19.2 min
120 km/h
74.6 mph
BSh-MV
Bartini Stal'-6, El, and StaP 8

Purpose: High-speed research aircraft with
fighter-like possibilities.
Design Bureau: SNII, at Factory No 240.
One of the few aircraft designers to emigrate
to (not from) the infant Soviet Union was
Roberto Lodovico Bartini. A fervent Communist, he chose to leave his native Italy in 1923
when the party was proscribed by Mussolini.
By 1930 he was an experienced aircraft designer, and qualified pilot, working at the
Central Construction Bureau. In April of that
year he proposed the creation of the fastest
aircraft possible. In the USSR he had always
suffered from being 'foreign', even though he
had taken Soviet citizenship, and nothing was
done for 18 months until he managed to enlist the help of P I Baranov, head of the RKKA
(Red Army) and M N Tukhachevskii (head of
RKKA armament). They went to Y Y Anvel't, a
deputy head at the GUGVF (main directorate
of civil aviation), who got Bartini established
at the SNII (GVF scientific test institute). Work
began here in 1932, the aircraft being designated Stal' (steel) 6, as one of a series of ex14
perimental aircraft with extensive use of hightensile steels in their airframes. After successful design and construction the Stal'-6
was scheduled for pre-flight testing (taxi runs
at increasing speed) in the hands of test pilot
Andrei Borisovich Yumashev. On the very first
run he 'sensed the lightness of the controls., .which virtually begged to be airborne'.
He pulled slightly back on the stick and the
aircraft took off, long before its scheduled
date. The awesomely advanced aircraft
proved to be straightforward to fly, but the engine cooling system suffered a mechanical
fault and the first landing was in a cloud of
steam. Yumashev was reprimanded by Bartini for not adhering to the programme, but
testing continued. Yumashev soon became
the first pilot in the USSR to exceed 400km/h,
and a few days later a maximum-speed run
confirmed 420km/h (261 mph), a national
speed record. One of Bartini's few friends in
high places was Georgei K Ordzhonikidze,
People's Commissar for Heavy Industries. In
November 1933, soon after the Stal'-6 (by this
time called the El, experimental fighter) had
shown what it could do, he personally ordered Bartini to proceed with a fighter derived from it. This, the Stal'-8, was quickly
created in a separate workshop at Factory
240, and was thus allocated the Service designation of I-240. Hearing about the Stal'-6's
speed, Tukhachevskii called a meeting at the
Main Naval Directorate which was attended
by many high-ranking officers, including
heads from GUAP (Main Directorate of Aviation Production), the WS (air force), RKKA
and SNII GVF. The meeting was presided over
by Klementi Voroshilov (People's Commissar
for Army and Navy) and Ordzhonikidze. At
this time the fastest WS fighter, the I-5,
reached 280km/h. The consensus of the
meeting was that 400km/h was impossible.
Many engineers, including AAMikulin, designer of the most powerful Soviet engines,
demonstrated or proved that such a speed
was not possible. When confronted by the
Stal'-6 test results, and Comrade Bartini himself, the experts were amazed. They called for
State Acceptance tests (not previously required on experimental aircraft). These began
B A R T I N I STAL'-G, A N D STAL'-S
Top: Stal'-6.
Centre: Three views of the StaP-6.
Bottom: Inboard profile of Stal'-6.
15
B A R T I N I STAL'-G, A N D STAL'-8
in the hands of Pyotr M Stefanovskii on 8th
June 1934 (by which time the fast I-16 monoplane fighter was flying, reaching 359km/h).
On 17th June the Stal'-6 was handed to the Nil
WS (air force scientific research institute),
where it was thoroughly tested by Stevanovskiy and N V Ablyazovskiy. They did not
exceed 365km/h, because they found that at
higher speeds they needed to exert considerable strength to prevent the aircraft from
rolling to port (an easily cured fault). On 13th
July the landing-gear indicator lights became
faulty and, misled, Stefanovskii landed with
the main wheel retracted. The aircraft was repaired, and the rolling tendency cured. Various modifications were made to make the
speedy machine more practical as a fighter.
For example the windscreen was fastened in
the up position and the pilot's seat in the
raised position. After various refinements Stefanovskii not only achieved 420km/h but expressed his belief that with a properly tuned
engine a speed 25-30km/h higher than this
might be reached. The result was that fighter
designers - Grigorovich, Polikarpov, Sukhoi
and even Bartini himself - were instructed to
build fighters much faster than any seen hitherto. Bartini continued working on the StaP-8,
a larger and more practical machine than the
Stal'-6, with an enclosed cockpit with a forward-sliding hood, two ShKAS machine guns
and an advanced stressed-skin airframe. The
engine was to be the 860hp Hispano-Suiza
HS12Ybrs, with which a speed of 630km/h
(391 mph) was calculated. Funds were allocated, the Service designation of the Stal'-8
being I-240. This futuristic fighter might have
been a valuable addition to the WS, but Bartini's origins were still remembered even in
the mid-1930s, and someone managed to get
funding for the Stal'-8 withdrawn. One reason
put forward was vulnerability of the steam
cooling system. In May 1934 the I-240 was
abandoned, with the prototype about 60 per
cent complete.
Everything possible was done to reduce
drag. The cantilever wing had straight taper
and slight dihedral (existing drawings incorrectly show a horizontal upper surface). The
two spars were made from KhMA (chromemolybdenum steel) tubes, each spar comprising seven tubes of 16.5mm diameter at
the root, tapering to three at mid-semi-span
and ending as a single tube of 18mm diameter towards the tip. The ribs were assembled
from Enerzh-6 (stainless) rolled strip. Ailerons,
flaps and tail surfaces were assembled from
steel pressings, with Percale fabric skin. The
flaps were driven manually, and when they
were lowered the ailerons drooped 5. Bartini invented an aileron linkage which adjusted
stick force according to indicated airspeed
(this was resurrected ten years later by the
Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute as their
16
own idea). The fuselage was likewise based

on a framework of welded KhMA steel tubes.
Ahead of the cockpit the covering comprised
unstressed panels of magnesium alloy, the aft
section being moulded plywood. In flight the
cockpit was part-covered by a glazed hood
flush with the top of the fuselage, giving the
pilot a view to each side only. For take-off and
landing the hood could be hinged upwards,
while the seat was raised by a winch and
cable mechanism. Likewise the landing gear
was based on a single wheel on the centreline, with an 800 x 200mm tyre, mounted on
two struts with rubber springing. The pilot
could unlock this and raise it into an AMTs
(light alloy) box between the rudder pedals.
For some reason the fuselage skin on each
side of this bay was corrugated. The wheel
bay was normally enclosed by a door which
during the retraction cycle was first opened to
admit the wheel and then closed. Extension
was by free-fall, finally assisted by the cable
until the unit locked. Under the outer wings
were hinged support struts, likewise retracted to the rear by cable. When extended, each
strut could rotate back on its pivot against a
spring. Under the tail was a skid with a rubber
shock absorber. The engine was an imported
Curtiss Conqueror V-15 70 rated at 630hp, driving a two-blade metal propeller with a large
spinner (photographs show that at least two
different propellers were fitted). This massive
vee-12 engine was normally water-cooled,
but Bartini boldly adopted a surface-evaporation steam cooling system. The water in the
engine was allowed to boil, and the steam
flowed into the leading edges of the wings
which were covered by a double skin from
the root to the aileron. Each leading edge was
electrically spot- and seam-welded, with a
soldering agent, to form a sealed box with a
combined internal area of 12.37m2 (133ft2).
Each leading edge was attached to the upper

and lower front tubes of the front spar. Inside,
the steam, under slight pressure, condensed
back into water which was then pumped
back to the engine. The system was not designed for prolonged running, and certainly
not with the aircraft parked.
Bartini succeded brilliantly in constructing
the fastest aircraft built at that time in the Soviet Union. At the same time he knew perfectly well that the Stal'-6 was in no way a
practical machine for the WS. The unconventional landing gear appeared to work
well, and even the evaporative cooling system was to be perpetuated in the I-240 fighter (but that was before the Stal'-6 had flown).
Whether the I-240 would have succeded in
front-line service is doubtful, but it was the
height of folly to cancel it. The following data
refers to the Stal'-6.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
9.46m
6.88m
14.3m2
31 ft 'A in
22 ft 6% in
154ft2
Weights
Empty
Maximum loaded weight
850kg
1,080kg
1,874 Ib
2,381 Ib
420km/h
21m/s
8,000 m
1 hour 30 min
llOkm/h
261 mph
4,135ft/min
26,250ft
Performance
v Maximum speed
Maximum rate of climb

Service ceiling
Endurance
Minimum landing speed
Stal'-8 model in tunnel.
68.4 mph
BARTINI STAL'-G, AND STAL'-J

Stal'-8,I-240
Bartini Stal'-7
Purpose: Originally, fast passenger
transport; later, long-range experimental
aircraft.
Design: SNII GVF; construction at GAZ
(Factory) No 81, Moscow Tushino.
In the winter 1933-34 the GUGVF (chief administration of the civil air fleet) issued a requirement for a fast transport aircraft to carry
10 to 12 passengers. Curiously, the two prototypes built to meet this demand were both the
work of immigrant designers, the Frenchman
Laville (with ZIG-1) and the Italian Bartini.
The latter had already produced drawings for
a transport to cruise at 400km/h (248mph),
which was well in advance of what the GVF
had in mind. Always captivated by speed,
Stalin decreed that a bomber version should
be designed in parallel. Still in charge of design at the SNII GVF, Bartini refined his study
into the Stal'-7, the name reflecting its steel
construction.
Strongly influenced by the Stalin decree,
Bartini created a transport notable for its
cramped and inconvenient fuselage, highly
unsuitable for passengers but excellent for

bombs, and for long-range flight. The original
structure was to be typical Bartini welded
steel-tube trusses with fabric covering, but
the stress calculations were impossibly difficult, with 200 primary rigid welded intersections between tubes of different diameters. In
late 1934 the fuselage was redesigned as a
light-alloy stressed-skin structure, with simpler connections to the unchanged wing.
Only one aircraft was built, in the workshops of ZOK, the factory for GVF experimental construction. The first flight was made on
an unrecorded date in autumn 1936, the pilot
being N P Shebanov. Performance was outstanding, and Shebanov proposed attempting
a round-the-world flight. In 1937 the StaP-7
was fitted with 27 fuel tanks with a total capacity of 7,400 litres (1,628 Imperial gallons,
1,955 US gallons). A maximum-range flight
was then attempted, but - possibly because
of structural failure of a landing gear - the aircraft crashed on take-off. Bartini was arrested, and was in detention (but still designing,
initially at OKB-4, Omsk) for 17 years.
The aircraft was repaired, and on 28th August 1939, at a slightly reduced weight, successfully made a closed-circuit flight of
5,068km (3,149 miles) in 12hrs Slmin (average speed 404.936km/h, 251.62mph), to set
an FAI Class record. The route was Moscow
Tushino-Maloe Brusinskoe (Sverdlovsk region)-Sevastopol-Tushino, and the crew
comprised Shebanov, copilot VAMatveyev
and radio/navigator N A Baikuzov. In Bartini's
absence, the project was seized by his opportunist co-worker V G Yermolayev, who redesigned it into the outstanding DB-240 and
Yer-2 long-range bomber.
The wing was typical Bartini, with pronounced straight taper and construction from
complex spars built up from multiple steel
tubes, almost wholly with fabric covering.
Each wing comprised a very large centre section, with depth almost as great as that of the
fuselage, terminating just beyond the engine
nacelles 2.8m (9ft 2/4in) from the centreline,
with sharp anhedral, and thinner outer panels
with dihedral. The trailing edges carried split
flaps and Frise ailerons, the left aileron having
17
B A R T I N I STAL'-?
a trim tab. One account says that the invertedgull shape 'improved stability and provided a
cushion effect which reduced take-off and
landing distance', but its only real effect was
to raise the wing on the centreline from the
low to the mid position.
Stal'-7
This was just what the fuselage did not

need, because the massive deep spars
formed almost impassable obstructions and
eliminated any possibility of using the aircraft
as a passenger airliner. The fuselage was a
light-alloy structure, with an extremely
cramped cross-section with sides sloping in

towards the top (almost a round-cornered triangle). Entry was via a very small door on the
left of the rear fuselage. The cockpit in the
nose seated pilots side by side, and had a
glazed canopy with sliding side windows and
the then-fashionable forward-raked windscreen. Immediately behind the cockpit there
was a station for the navigator/radio operator.
The tail surfaces, made of dural/fabric, were
of low aspect ratio, the elevators having tabs.
The engines were the 760hp M-100, these
being the initial Soviet licence-built version
derived by V Ya Klimov from the HispanoSuiza 12Ybrs. They were installed in neat
cowlings at the outer ends of the centre section, angled slightly outwards and driving propellers with three metal blades which could
have pitch adjusted on the ground. One account states that wing-surface radiators were
used, but it is obvious from photographs that
ordinary frontal radiators were fitted, as in the
Tupolev SB bomber. Plain exhaust stubs
were fitted, though this may have scorched
the wing fabric and one drawing shows exhaust pipes discharging above the wing. In
the course of 1938-39 the original engines
were replaced by the derived M-103, rated at
860hp, which improved performance with
heavy fuel loads. A hydraulic system was provided to operate the flaps and the fully retractable main landing gears, each unit of
which had a strong pair of main legs which
hinged at mid-length, the unit then swinging
back on twin forward radius arms (like a DC3 back-to-front). The castoring tailwheel was
fixed. In the nose were twin landing lights.
The Stal'-7 was simply a sound aeroplane
able to fly at what was in its day a very long
way at high speed. As a transport it was inconvenient to the point of being useless,
though it was supposed to be able to seat 12
passengers, and it was flawed by its basic layout and structure. The Soviet Union was right
to take a licence for the Douglas DC-3. On
the other hand, Yermolayev transformed the
Stal'-7 into an outstanding long-range bomber.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
23.0 m
16.0m
72.0 m2
75ft 5^ in
52 ft 6 in
775ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (originally)
Maximum loaded ( 1 939)
4,800 kg
7,200 kg
1 1 ,000 kg
1 0,580 Ib
1 5,873 Ib
24,250 Ib
Performance
Max speed at 3,000m (9,842 ft) 450km/h
Cruising speed
360/380 km/h
Service ceiling
(disbelieved by Gunston) 1 1 ,000 m
(on one engine, light weight) 4,500 m
Left: Two views of Stal'-7.

18
280 mph
224/236 mph
36,090ft
14,764ft
B A R T I N I VVA-14
BartiniWA-14
Purpose: To explore the characteristics of
a vehicle able to fly as an aeroplane or skim
the ocean surface as an Ekranoplan (literally
'screen plan', a device covering an area with
a screen).
Design Bureau: TANTK named for
G M Beriev Taganrog.
Ever one to consider radical solutions, Bartini
spent part of 1959 scheming a giant marine
vehicle called M. Seaborne at rest, this was to
be able to rise from the water and fly at high
speed over long distances. It was to make
true flights at high altitude, but also have the
capability of 'flying' just above the sea
surface. Such a vehicle was initially seen as
urgently needed to destroy US Navy Polarismissile submarines, but it could have many
other applications. The idea was refined into
one called 2500, from its weight in tonnes,
and ultimately designated M-62 or MVA-62.
TANTK Beriev investigated stability, control
and performance of the proposed configuration with the small Be-1. This looked vaguely
like a jet fighter, with a front cockpit, large
centroplan (central wing) with a turbojet on
top, twin floats, outer wings and twin fins and
rudders. Under each float was a surfacepiercing V-type hydrofoil, which was not to be
a feature of the full-scale vehicle.
Pending funding for this monster, TANTK
Beriev were ordered to build three WA-14
prototypes, this being a practical basis for a
multirole vehicle. Missions were to include
sea/air search and rescue, defence against all
kinds of hostile submarines and surface warships, and patrol around the Soviet coastlines.
Production craft were to be kept at readiness
on coastal airfields. The vehicle was classed
as an amphibious aircraft. It was to be developed in three phases. The WA-14M1 was to
be an aerodynamics and technology test-bed,
initially with rigid pontoons on the ends of the
centroplan, and later with these replaced by
PVPU inflatable pontoons (which took years
to develop). The WA-14M2 was to be more
advanced, with two extra main engines to
blast under the centroplan to give lift and later
with a battery of lift engines to give VTOL capability, and with fly-by-wire flight controls.
The third stage would see the VTOL vehicle
fully equipped with armament and with the
Burevestnik computerised ASW (anti-submarine warfare) system, Bor-1 MAD (magneticanomaly detection) and other operational
equipment.
Following very extensive research, and
tests with simulators, the first vehicle,
Nol9172, was completed as an aeroplane. It
was tested at the Taganrog WS flying school,
which had a concrete runway. Accompanied
by numerous engineers, including deputy

chief designer Nikolai A Pogorelov, the test
crew of Yu M Kupriyanov and navigator/systems engineer L F Kuznetsov opened the
flight test programme with a conventional
take-off on 4th September 1972. The only
problem was serious vibration of hydraulic
pipes, which resulted in total loss of fluid from
one of the two systems.
In 1974 the PVPU inflatable pontoons were
at last installed, though their expansion and
retraction caused many problems. Flotation
and water taxi tests followed, culminating in
the start of flight testing of the amphibious aircraft on 11 th June 1975. Everyone was amazed
that Bartini was proved correct in his belief
that the rubber/fabric pontoons would retain
their shape at high airspeeds. On water they
were limited to 36km/h, so later they were replaced by rigid pontoons, with skegs (axial
strakes). The forward fuselage was lengthened and the starting (cushion-blowing) engines added. On the debit side, Bartini was
also right in predicting that the Lotarev bureau would never deliver the intended battery
of 12 RD-36-35PR lift engines, and this made
the second and third prototypes redundant.
Bartini died in 1974, and the now truncated
programme continued with trickle funding.
The blowing engines caused resonance
which resulted in breakage of landing-gear
doors and buffeting of the rear control flaps.
The vehicle never flew again, but did carry
out manoeuvre tests on water with reversers
added to the blowing engines. TANTK was
given higher-priority work with the A-40, A-50
and IL-78.
The entire structure was marinised light
alloy, much of the external skin being of honeycomb sandwich. The airframe was based
on the fuselage, centroplan of short span but
Model of MVA-62.
very long chord, and cigar-like floats carrying

the tails. Above the rear on the centreline
were the two main engines. The starting engines were mounted on the sides of the nose,
and the (unused) lift-engine bay was disposed around the centre of gravity amidships.
On each side of this area projected the outer
wings, with straight equal taper and thickness/chord ratio of 12 per cent, with full-span
leading-edge slats, ailerons and flaps hinged
1m (3ft 31/2in) below the wing.
The propulsion and starting (cushion-blowing) engines were all Solov'yov D-30M turbofans, each rated at 6,800kg (14,991 Ib). The
starting engines were equipped with cascade-type thrust deflectors, and later with
clamshell-type reversers. A TA-6AAPU (auxiliary power unit) was carried to provide electric power and pneumatic power. Bleed air
served the cabin conditioning system and
hot-air deicing of all leading edges. A total of
15,500kg (34,171 Ib) of fuel was housed in two
metal tanks and 12 soft cells.
The cockpit contained three K-36L ejection-seats, for the pilot, navigator and
weapon-systems operator. Flight controls
were linked through the SAU-M autopilot and
complex military navigation and weapon-delivery systems. Had the aircraft undertaken
VTOL flights the reaction-control system
would have come into use, with six pairs of
high-power bleed-air nozzles disposed at the
wingtips and longitudinal extremities. For operation from land No 19172 was fitted with the
nose and a single main landing gear of a
Tu-22, both on the centreline, and the complete outrigger-gear pods of a Myasishchev
3M heavy bomber. Maximum ordnance load,
carried on IL-38 racks, comprised 4 tonnes
(8,8181b), made up of AT-1 or -2 torpedoes,
PLAB-250-120 or other bombs, various mines
up to UDM-1500 size, RYu-2 depth charges
and various sonobuoys (such as 144 RGB-1U).
19
OKB drawing of WA-14M1
One of the incomplete WA-14s was damaged by fire, the third being abandoned at an
early stage. The one with which all the flying
was done, Nol9172, was retired to the Monino museum in a dismantled state, where it
carries the number '10687' and 'Aeroflot'.
TANTK had various projects for intended production amphibious derivatives. These were
grouped under letter T, and two such are
illustrated here for the first time.
The WA-14 was an outstandingly bold
concept which very nearly came off. There is
little doubt it could have led to a practical verhicle for many oceanic purposes. In the long
term all it achieved was to give TANTK-Beriev
considerable experience in many new disciplines, especially in challenging avionics and
flight-control areas. Such a programme would
have almost no chance of being funded today.
Dimensions
Span (wing)
28.5m
(over lateral-control pods) 30.0 m
Length (as built, excluding PVD
instrumentation boom)
25.97 m
later
30.0m
Wing area
217.788m2
Total lifting area
280 m2
85 ft 2% in
98 ft 5 in
2,344ft 2
3,014 ft 2
Weights
Empty (in final form)
23,236 kg
(intended weight with lift jets) 35,356 kg
Maximum take-off weight 52,000kg
5 1 ,226 Ib
77,945 Ib
1 14,638 Ib
93 ft 6 in
98 ft 5 in
Performance
Max speed at 6,000m (19,685 ft) 760km/h 472 mph
Patrol speed (also minimum
flight speed at low level) 360 km/h
224 mph
Service ceiling
9,000-1 0,000m 32,800 ft (max)
Practical range
2,450 km
1 ,522 miles
Patrol duration at a radius of 800 km (497 miles) 2 hrs 15 min
WA-14M1 on land (without pontoons),
on water and in flight.
20
Above: Three-view of WA-14M2 with retractable landing gear.

Left: A more detailed side elevation of WA-14M2.
Below: Two of the 'T' projects.
21
BELYAYEV BABOCHKA
Belyayev Babochka
Purpose: To test an experimental wing.
Design bureau: Kazan Aeronautical
Institute, Kazan, Tatar ASSR.
The concept of the wing was that of
V N Belyayev, but in order to test it he collaborated with VI Yukharin of the KAI. Partly because it would have been difficult to match
centre of lift with centre of gravity by retrofitting the wing to an existing aircraft, it was
decided to design an aircraft specially for this
purpose. It was called Babochka (butterfly).
The project was launched in 1937, and drawings were completed late the following year.
Throughout, Belyayev was devoting most of
his time to the EOI (see page 27). The single
Babochka was being readied for flight when
the Soviet Union was invaded. Even though
Kazan was far to the East of Moscow, this project was not considered important and those
working on it were drafted elsewhere.
1 -s/l?
Model of Babochka
Babochka
22
This aircraft was essentially a straightforward low-wing monoplane, of fighter-like

appearance, with a single (relatively large)
piston engine. It is believed that the structure
was almost all-metal stressed skin. The key
item, the wing, had a high aspect ratio, sweptforward inboard sections and swept-back
outer panels. The objective was to make a
wing that was flexible yet which in severe
positive manoeuvres would deflect upwards
without causing a longitudinal pitch problem.
Under load, the inner wings deflected upwards, tending to twist with positive angle of
incidence, automatically countered by the
negative twist of the outer panels. This was
hoped to lead to an extension of Belyayev's
concept of a wing that was inherently stable
longitudinally.
The inner wings were fitted with inboard
and outboard split flaps, while the smaller
outer panels carried two-section ailerons.
The engine was mounted on the nose on a

steel-tube truss. According to historian V B
Shavrov the engine was a 'Renault 430hp'
(which would have had 12 cylinders and a
central air-cooling inlet). In fact it must have
been an MV-6, a licence-built Renault with six
aircooled cylinders, rated at 210hp. Tandem
enclosed cockpits were provided for the pilot
and test observer. The tail, remarkably small
(reflecting the designer's belief in the stability of the wing) positioned the horizontal tail
wholly in front of the rudder. The landing
gears were fully retractable, the main wheels
folding inwards into the extended-chord
wing roots.
Though there is no reason to doubt that the
Babochka would have flown successfully,
there is equally no reason to believe that it
would have shown any significant advantage
over an aircraft with a conventional straighttapered wing.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
10.8m
6.84m
11.5m 2
35 ft 514 in
22ft5!4in
124ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
680kg
1,028kg
l,4991b
2,266 Ib
Performance (estimated)
Maximum speed
510km/h
31 7 mph
BELYAYEV DB-LK
Belyayev DB-LK
DB-LK, plan view showing top and underside
Purpose: The initials stood for 'long-range

bomber, flying wing'.
Design Bureau: Designer's own brigade at
the Central Aerodynamics and
Hydrodynamics Institute.
Viktor Nikolayevich Belyayev, born in 1896,
began his career as a stressman in the OMOS
bureau in 1925. He subsequently worked in
AGOS, KOSOS-CAH1 (TsAGl), the Tupolev
OKB, AviAvnito and Aeroflot. He liked tailless
aircraft, and had a fixation on a 'bat wing',
with slight forward sweep and curved-back
tips, which he considered not only gave such
aircraft good longitudinal stability but also
minimised induced drag. He tested such a
wing in his BP-2 glider of 1933, which was
towed by an R-5 from Koktebel (Crimea) to
Moscow. In 1934 he entered an AviAvnito
competition for a transport with a design having twin fuselages, each with a 750hp Wright
Cyclone engine and ten passenger seats, but
this was not built.
From this he derived the DB-LK bomber.
Designed in 1938, the single prototype was
completed in November 1939, but (according
to unofficial reports) pilots declined to do
more than make fast taxi runs, the aircraft
being dubbed Kuritsa (chicken) in consequence. In early 1940 this unacceptable situ-
ation was ended by the appointment by GK

Nil WS (direction of the air force scientific
test institute) of M A Nyukhtikov as test pilot,
assisted by lead engineer TTSamarin and
test observer N I Shaurov. Test flying began in
early 1940, at which time Mark Gallai also
joined the test team. Nyukhtikov complained
that the flight-control system was inadequate
and that the landing-gear shock absorbers
were weak. In the investigation that followed,
the Commission agreed with the first point,
but the Head of Nil WS, AI Filin, thought the
landing gear satisfactory. He then changed
his mind when a leg collapsed with himself at
the controls (see photo). Later the main legs
were not only redesigned but were also inclined forward, to improve directional stability on the ground and avoid dangerous swing.
Later in 1940 the Nil WS ordered the DB-LK
to be abandoned, despite its outstanding performance, and the planned imminent installation of l,100hp M-88 engines. Belyayev had
by this time designed a refined version with
1,700hp M-71 engines, but was told that the
DB-3F (later redesignated IL-4) would remain
the standard long-range bomber.
Belyayev left comprehensive aerodynamic
details, showing that the strange wing was of
CAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile over the longchord centroplan (centre section) but Gottin-
gen 387 profile over the supposed 'bat-like'

outer panels. Overall aspect ratio was no less
than 8.2, and the outer wings had a leadingedge sweep of minus 5 42', with a taper ratio
of 7. The airframe was almost entirely a modern light-alloy stressed-skin structure, the
wing having five spars. There is evidence the
structural design was modern, with most
components pressed or even machined from
sheet. The outer wings had flaps of the unusual Zapp type, extended to 45, with Frise
ailerons outboard, which even had miniature
sections on the back-raked tips. Ahead of the
ailerons were slats.
At each end of the centroplan was a fuselage, of basically circular section. On the front
of each was a Tumanskii (Mikulin KB) M-87B
14-cylinder radial engine (Gnome-Rhone ancestry) rated at 950hp, driving a VISh-23D
three-blade variable-pitch propeller of 3.3m
(10ft l0in) diameter weighing 152kg (335 Ib).
The engines were housed in modern longchord cowlings, with pilot-operated cooling
gills. Tanks in the wings and fuselages housed
3,444 litres (757.6 Imperial gallons, 910 US gallons) of fuel, with all tanks protected by nitrogen inerting.
On the centreline at the rear was a large
(7.0m2, 75.3ft2) single fin and a 1.94m2 (20.9ft2)
rudder with a large trim tab. High on the fin,
23
BELYAYEV DB-LK
above the rudder, was fixed a small (0.85m2,
9.15ft2) tailplane to which were pivoted the
enormous elevators of 4.8m2 (51.7ft2) total
area, each with a large tab.
Each fuselage was provided with a main
landing gear, with a single oleo strut on the
outer side of the axle for a single wheel with
a 900 x 300mm tyre, with a hydraulic brake.
Each unit retracted rearwards hydraulically.
On the centreline at the rear was the fixed
castoring tailwheel, with a 450 x 150 tyre.
The intention was that the series (production) DB-LK should have a pilot in the front of
the left fuselage, a navigator in front on the
right, and gunners in each tailcone. The gunners, entering like the others via roof hatches,
should manage the radio as well as pairs of
ShKAS 7.62mm machine guns, with a 10
field of fire in all directions. Two more ShKAS
fired ahead on the centreline, aimed by the
pilot, and for the six guns a total of 4,500
rounds were provided. Behind each maingear bay was a bomb bay, with powered
doors (see underside view). Each could carry
an FAB-1000 (2,205 Ib) bomb, or four FAB-250
(551 Ib) bombs, or many other smaller stores.
Predictably, the full military equipment was
never fitted, though radio was installed
throughout the flight trials.
Despite its strikingly unconventional appearance, the DB-LK appeared to be a practical
bomber with outstanding flight performance.
Compared with the established WS bomber
it had the same number of similar engines,
and even half the number of landing-gear
oleos, despite having twice the number of
fuselages and weapon bays. From today's
distance, it might have been worth pursuing
this formula a little further.
Dimensions
Span
21.6m
70 ft 1014 in
Length
9.78 m
32 ft 1 in
2
Wing area
56.87m
612ft 2
Note: various other figures for span (21.4 m) and wing area (59 m2)
have appeared.
Weights
Empty (also given as 5,655 kg) 6,004 kg
Normal loaded weight
9,061 kg
Max loaded weight
10,672kg
(also given as 9,285 kg)
Performance
Max speed at sea level,
395 km/h
at 5,100m (16,730 ft)
488 km/h
Take-off speed
1 45 km/h
Max rate of climb
6.15m/s
Time to climb to 3,000 m 8.2 min
Time to climb to 5,000 m
1 3.6 min
Service ceiling
8,500 m
Range (with 1,000 kg bombload)
at normal gross weight
1 ,270 km
maximum
2,900 km
Landing speed
1 50 km/h
1 3,236 Ib
1 9,976 Ib
23,528 Ib
245 mph
303 mph
90 mph
l,210ft/min
(9,843ft)
(16,404ft)
27,890ft
789 miles
1,800 miles
93 mph
Four views of DB-LK, one showing landing-gear

failure.
24
B E L Y A Y E V FBI / B E L Y A Y E V 370, EOI
Belyayev PBI
Purpose: Experimental dive-bomber fighter.
Design Bureau: V N Belyayev.
N Ye Leont'yev - could simultaneously have

worked on the DB-LK, Babochka and two advanced pusher fighters and bombers. The inference has to be that the FBI did not progress
far beyond the mock-up. This may have been
photographed after the workers had left, immediately before it was destroyed, or alternatively it may have been safely located (but
abandoned) somewhere East of Moscow.
No descriptive material has come to light

regarding the proposed FBI (Russian for divebomber fighter). Only recently have photographs of the mock-up been discovered,
marked SEKRETNO and dated 19/1I-40.
When these photographs were unearthed
and identified nothing was known of such an
aircraft, and it was concluded that this was Specification. No figures known.
the mock-up of the EOI fighter, especially as
Shavrov said this was a twin-boom aircraft.
Studying the photographs makes it obvious
that the FBI was what its designation states,
and not primarily a fighter. Almost the only
fact deducible under the heading 'History' is
that the date is one month after the evacuation of the factories in the Moscow area.
In some respects the FBI design is similar
to the EOI fighter. The forward fuselage has
two cannon in the same undernose position,
the single-seat cockpit has similar features,
the wing is in the same mid-position, immediately behind it is the engine driving a threeblade pusher propeller and the twin booms
and tail are similar. The differences are that
the cockpit area is almost completely glazed,
and the landing gears are taller to facilitate
loading bombs on five racks (apparently an
FAB-500 on the centreline and for an FAB-100
and FAB-50 under each wing).
It is unlikely that Belyayev - even assisted
by his team of P N Obrubov, L L Selyakov,
E I Korzhenevskii, D A Zatvan, B S Beki and Two views of the FBI mock-up.
Belyayev 370, EOI

Purpose: Experimental fighter.
Design Bureau: V N Belyayev, working at
GAZ (factory) No 156, Moscow.
This EOI (Eksperimental'nyi Odnomestnyi
Istrebitel', experimental single-seat fighter)
was proposed in early 1939, and personally
approved by Stalin in August of that year. Design and manufacture proceeded through
1940, and at the German invasion of 22nd
June 1941 the first flight was only a few
months away.
In October the Moscow factories were
evacuated. It was decided to abandon the
project, and the part-complete EOI, drawings
and calculations were destroyed. When photographs of the FBI (see above) were discovered it was at first thought that this must be
the same aircraft. In fact, there was little similarity between the two designs apart from the
basic configuration.
The EOI had the cockpit in the nose, almost

perfectly streamlined, with armament in the
same location. Possibly for the first time in
history, Belyayev designed the entire front
section of the aircraft to be separated in
emergency, so that the pilot would not have
to bail out ahead of the propeller. The latter
was to be driven by a Klimov M-105 engine,
rated at l,100hp and fitted with a TK-2 turbocharger. In the original scheme, like fighters of 1917 by Gallaudet in the USA and
Dufaux in France, the propeller was to have a
large-diameter hub through which passed a
tube carrying the rear fuselage. Some of the
'370' drawings are reproduced overleaf. One
shows the proposed cockpit, armament of
two underfloor VYa-23 cannon and location
of the cartridge-severed attachments. Another drawing shows the unique arrangement in
which the wing was to be provided with a
slat. This auxiliary surface was normally
housed in a recess immediately ahead of the

flap or aileron. For take-off and landing it was
to be swung down and forward to adopt a
leading-edge-down attitude ahead of the
leading edge of the wing. Thus, it was a bolder precursor of today's Krueger flap. Whether
or not this aerodynamically powerful idea
was abandoned is unknown, but Belyayev
certainly abandoned the original rear fuselage. By late 1939 he had decided to use conventional twin tail booms. The specification
overleaf applies to this revised scheme.
According to one document it was intended that a production version should have had
the M-106 engine. This would have been
rated at 1,350hp, instead of 1,1 00hp. Whether
the unconventional configuration, and especially the potentially dangerous slat system,
would have shown to advantage will never be
known.
25
B E L Y A Y E V 370,
EOI
Sketch drawings of 370
Dimensions
Span
Wing area
Design speed
11.4m
19 nf
700km/h
37 ft 5 in
205ft 2
435 mph
No other data.
On take-off and landing
Flight position
Model of the final EOI configuration.
26
BEREZNYAK-ISAYEV BI
Bereznyak-Isayev BI
Purpose: Experimental rocket-engined
interceptor-fighter.
Design Bureau: Designers Aleksandr
Yakovlevich Bereznyak and Aleksei
Mikhailovich Isayev, working at OKB of
Bolkhovitinov, later managed by CAHI
(TsAGI).
In 1939 Bereznyak was an observer at the static tests of the first reliable rocket engine developed by Leonid Stepanovich Dushkin. In
early 1940 he watched flight tests of the primitive RP-318 (see later under Korolyev). He
discussed rocket aircraft with Isayev, who
had been a Dushkin engineer involved with
the RP-318. In late May 1941 they decided to
propose a high-speed rocket-engined fighter.
They put the suggestion to Prof Bolkhovitinov
(see later entry). After discussion with all interested parties Bolkhovitinov sent a letter to
GUAP (chief administration of aviation industry) on 9th July 1941 putting forward a detailed proposal. Soon a reply came from the
Kremlin. The principals were called to GUAP
before Shakhurin and A S Yakovlev, and within a week there was a full go-ahead. The
order was for five prototypes, with the time to
first flight cut from the suggested three
months to a mere 35 days.
A complete Bolkhovitinov team were confined to the OKB for 40 days, working three
shifts round the clock. Tunnel testing was
done at CAHI, supervised by G S Byushgens.

The first (unpowered) flight article was built
without many drawings, dimensions being
drawn directly on the materials and on templates. B M Kudrin made the first flight on
10th September 1941, the tug being a Pe-2. All
necessary data were obtained in 15 flights. On
16th October the OKB and factory was evacuated to a half-built shed outside Sverdlovsk.
The first (experimental) D-1A engine was installed in late January 1942, but exploded during testing on 20th February, injuring Kudrin
(sent to hospital in Moscow) and a technician. The replacement pilot was Capt
G Ya Bakhshivandzhi. He was in the cockpit
on the first tied-down firing on 27th April 1942.
On 15th May 1942 he made the world's first
flight of a fully engineered rocket interceptor,
still fitted with skis.
By March 1943 seven BI prototypes had
been constructed, but the flying was entirely
in towed or gliding flight because of serious
problems caused by explosions and acid
spillages. Powered flying did not resume until
February 1943. By this time Kudrin had returned to flight status, and was assigned one
of the Bis. On powered flight No 6 on 21st
March 1943 a height of 3km (9,843ft) was
reached in 30 seconds. On powered flight
No7, with aircraft No 3, on 27th March,
Bakhshivandzhi made a run at sustained full
power; the aircraft suddenly pitched over and
dived into the ground. Tunnel testing later

showed that at about 900km/h the BI would
develop a nose-down pitching moment
which could not be held by the pilot.
Dimensions
Span
Nosland2
Nos 3 and later
Length
Nos 1 and 2
Nos 3 and later
Wing area
Nos land 2
No 3
Weights
Empty
Nol
No 3
No 7
Loaded
No 3
No 7
6.48m
6.6 m
21 ft 3 in
21 ft 8 in
6.4 m
6.935 m
21ft
22 ft 9 in
7.0m 2
7.2m 2
75.3ft2
77.5ft 2
462 kg
790kg
805kg
1,019 Ib
1,742 Ib
l,7751b
1,650kg
1,683kg
3,638 Ib
3,710 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
original estimate
800 km/h
achieved
900 km/h
1943 high-altitude estimate,
not attempted
1,020 km/h
Time to accelerate from 800 to 900 km/h
Take-off run
400m
Initial climb
120m/s
Time to 5,000 m
50 seconds
Endurance under full power 2 min
Landing speed
143 km/h
497 mph
559 mph
634 mph
20 seconds
1,310ft
23,622 ft/min
16,404ft
89 mph
Three-view of BI Nol (D1A-1100 engine fitted)
BINo6/PVRD
27
B E R E Z N Y A K - I S A Y E V BI
Top: BI No 1. Centre: Bakhchivandzhi with BI No 2. Bottom: BI No 6/PVRD in tunnel.
28
This terminated the delayed plan to build a

production series of 50 slightly improved aircraft, but testing of the prototypes continued.
Until the end of the War these tested various
later Dushkin engines, some with large thrust
chambers for take-off and combat and small
chambers to prolong the very short cruise endurance (which was the factor resulting in
progressive waning of interest). Other testing
attempted to perfect a sealed pressurized
cockpit. To extend duration significantly BI
No 6 was fitted with a Merkulov DM-4 ramjet
on each wingtip. These were fired during test
in the CAHI T-101 wind tunnel, but not in
flight.
By 1944 the urgency had departed from the
programme, and the remaining BI Nol (some
were scrapped following acid corrosion)
were used as basic research aircraft. BI No7
was modified with revised wing-root fairings
and stronger engine cowl panels, but at high
speed tailplane flutter was experienced. BI
No 5s (on skis) and BI No 6 (on wheels) were
modified and subjected to investigative gliding tests, initially towed by a B-25J.
In 1948 Bereznyak proposed a mixedpower interceptor with a three-chamber
rocket engine of 10,000kg (22,046 Ib) sealevel thrust, for 'dash' performance, and a
Mikulin AM-5 turbojet of 1,900kg (4,1891b)
sea-level thrust. Estimated maximum speed
was Mach 1.8, and range 750km (466 miles).
This was not proceeded with.
The BI Nol had a small and outstandingly
simple all-wood airframe. The straight-tapered wing, 6 per cent thick, had two box
spars and multiple stringers supporting skin
mainly of 2mm ply. Outboard were fabriccovered ailerons. Inboard were split flaps
with light-alloy structure (the only major
metal parts), with a landing angle of 50. The
fuselage was a plywood monocoque with
fabric bonded over the outer surface. It was
constructed integral with the upper and
lower fins. The rudder and elevators were
fabric-covered. On the tailplane were added
small circular endplate fins, and the powered
aircraft had the tailplane braced to both the
upper and lower fins.
The engine bay was lined with refractory
materials and stainless steel. The standard
engine was the Dushkin D-1A-1100, the designation reflecting the sea-level thrust
(2,425 Ib), rising to about 1,300kg (2,866 Ib) at
high altitude. The propellants, fed by compressed air, were RFNA (red fuming nitric
acid) and kerosene. These were contained in
cylindrical stainless-steel tanks in the centre
fuselage. The pneumatic system not only fed
the propellants but also charged the guns and
operated the flaps and main landing gears.
The latter retracted inwards into the wings
and normally had wheels with 500 x 150 tyres.
Under the ventral fin was a retracting tail-
B E R E Z N Y A K - I S A Y E VB I
wheel. In winter these units were replaced by

skis, the main skis retracting to lie snugly
under the wings.
The cockpit had a simple aft-sliding
canopy, and a bulletproof windscreen. Certain of the prototypes had armament, comprising two ShVAK 20mm cannon, each with
45 rounds, fired electrically and installed in
the upper half of the nose under a cover secured by three latches on each side. Between
the spars under the propellant cylinders was
a bay which in some aircraft could house a
small bomb load (see below). Structural factor of safety was 9, rising to no less than 13.5
after using most of the propellants.
By any yardstick the BI No 1 was a remark-
able achievement, and all pilots who flew it

thought it handled beautifully. It was killed by
the time it took to overcome the problems,
and - crucially - by the impracticably short
flight endurance.
powerful and of much later design than the

massive Pratt & Whitney. On 23rd August
1960 Directive 918-383 ordered OKB No 49,
assisted by neighbouring No 86, to study the
U-2 and produce five copies, designated S-13.
These were primarily to support 'a multidiscipline study of the structural, technical
and maintenance aspects of the U-2, and
master its technology for use in indigenous
aircraft'. It was also expected that the S-13
would be used to collect upper-atmosphere
samples, destroy hostile balloons and (using
the 73-13, or AFA-60, camera) undertake reconnaissance missions. Despite inexorable
increases in weight over the US original, work
attempted to meet the first-flight date of first
quarter 1962. Much of the supporting equipment had already been developed for the
Yak-25RV and TsybinRSR (which see). On 1st
April 1961 a detailed metal fuselage mock-up
was completed, with 'models of its systems'.
A Tu-16 was readied for testing the engine
(now designated RD-16-75), landing gears
and other items, while CAHI tunnels confirmed that the U-2 had the exceptional L/D
ratio of 25. Out of the blue, on 12th May 1962
Directive 440-191 ordered the whole S-13
project to be terminated.
The nominal weight breakdown for a fully equipped

powered aircraft was:
Airframe
Comprising fuselage
Wing
Tail group
Landing gear, wheeled
Engine
Controls
RFNA tanks
Kerosene tanks
Air bottles
Guns
Armour
Armour glass, windscreen
Other equipment about
Useful load comprised
Pilot
Nitric acid
Kerosene
20mm ammunition
Bombs
462kg
182kg
174kg
30kg
60kg
48kg
1,01 8.5 Ib
401 Ib
383.6 Ib
66 Ib
1321b
16kg
80kg
31.2kg
22.4kg
84kg
76 k
6kg
20kg
35 Ib
176.4lb
68.8 Ib
49.4 Ib
185 Ib
167.5lb
13 Ib
44 Ib
90kg
570kg
135kg
19.6kg
38.4 kg
198 Ib
1 ,256.6 Ib
297.6 Ib
43.2 Ib
84.6 Ib
106 Ib
OKB drawing of BI No 6/PVRD.
BerievS-13
Purpose: To copy the Lockheed U-2B.
Design Bureau: OKB No 49, Taganrog,
General Constructor G M Beriev.
On 1 st May 1960 the world was astonished to
learn that the missile defences of Sverdlovsk
had shot down a Lockheed U-2 of the US
Central Intelligence Agency. Parts of the aircraft were put on display in Moscow's Gorkiy
Park. What the world was not told was that
for months afterwards a vast area was
combed by large squads looking for every
fragment of the downed aircraft (which had
broken up at high altitude). All the pieces
were brought to GK Nil WS, where they were
carefully studied. On 28th June 1960 SovMin
Directive 702-288 instructed OKB No 16 in
Kazan, led by P F Zubets, to copy the J57-P-13
engine. This was a blow to Zubets, whose
RD-500 was in the same thrust class, and even
more to the several engine designers (Dobrynin, Lyul'ka, Kuznetsov and Tumanskii)
who had engines on test which were more
S-13 metal mock-up fuselage.
29
BICH-3
BICh-3
Purpose: To test previously invented
'parabola wing' in a powered aircraft
Design Bureau: Not an OKB but a private
individual, Boris Ivanovich Cheranovskii
(1896-1960). Throughout his life he
scratched around for funds to build and test
his succession of 30 types of gliders and
powered aircraft, all of 'tailless' configuration.
In 1924 Cheranovskii tested his BICh-1 'Parabola' glider and the refined BICh-2, which
demonstrated 'normal longitudinal stability
and controllability and is considered to have
been the world's first successful flying wing'.

In 1926 he followed with the BICh-3, which
was almost the BICh-2 fitted with an engine.
Cheranovskii's gliders had been flown at the
All-Union meetings at Koktebel, Crimea, but
most of the flying of his first aeroplane was
done by B N Kudrin (later famous) in Moscow.
The BICh-3 was a basically simple aircraft,
constructed of wood with thin ply skin over
the leading edge, inboard upper surface and
landing-gear trousers, and fabric elsewhere.
The BICh-2 had flown without a rudder (it
was better with one) since turning was
achieved by the ailerons. With the BICh-3 the

addition of an engine required a vestigial
fuselage with a fin and rudder. The main controls remained the trailing-edge elevators and
ailerons, operated by rods and bellcranks and
hung on inset balanced hinges. The engine
was a Blackburne Tomtit, an inverted V-twin
of 698 cc rated at 18hp. Skids were provided
under the tail and outer wings.
Kudrin described the BICh-3 as 'not very
stable, but controllable'. It was sufficiently
successful to lead to the many successors.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
9.5m
3.5m
20.0 m!
31 ft 2 in
Ilft6in
215ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
140kg
10kg
230kg
309 Ib
22 Ib
507 Ib
Performance
Max speed, not recorded
Landing speed
40km/h
25 mph
No other data.
Above: BICh-1.
Left: Cheranovskii with BICh-3.
BICh-3
30
BICH-7A
BICh-7A
BICH-7A
Purpose: To improve BICh-7, the next stage

beyond BICh-3.
Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.
BICh followed his Type 3 with the impressive
BICh-5 bomber, powered by two BMW VI engines, but never obtained funds to build it. In
1929 he flew the BICh-7, almost a 1.5-scale repeat of BICh-3 with two seats in tandem. The
problem was that he replaced the central tail
by rudders (without fixed fins) on the
wingtips, and the result was almost uncontrollable. He modified the aircraft into the
BICh-7A, but was so busy with the BICh-11
and other projects that the improved aircraft
did not fly until 1932. Apart from returning to
a central fin and rudder he replaced the centreline wheel and wingtip skids by a conventional landing gear. The BICh-7A gradually
became an outstanding aircraft. Testing was
done mainly by N P Blagin (later infamous for
colliding with the monster Maksim Gorkii),
and he kept modifying the elevators and
ailerons until the aircraft was to his satisfaction.
This larger 'parabola-wing' aircraft was
again made of wood, veneer and fabric, with
various metal parts including the conventional divided rubber-sprung main landing gears
and tailskid. The tandem cockpits were en-
closed, which in 1932 was unusual. The engine was a l00hp Bristol Lucifer, and one of
the unsolvable problems was that the Lucifer
was notorious for the violence of the firing
strokes from its three cylinders, which in
some aircraft (so far as we know, not including the BICh-7A) caused structural failure of
its mountings.
This aircraft appears to have become an
unqualified success, appearing at many airshows over several years.
BICh-7
BICH-7A
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
Weights (BICh-7)
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
(BICh-7A)
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
Performance
Maximum speed
Range
Landing speed
12.5m
4.95m
34.6 nf
41ft
16 ft 3 in
372 ft2
612kg
93kg
865kg
l,3491b
205 Ib
l,9071b
627kg
93kg
880kg
l,3821b
205 Ib
l,9401b
165km/h
350km
70km/h
102.5 mph
21 7 miles
43.5 mph
31
B I C H - 8 / B I C H - 1 1 , RP-1
BICh-8
Purpose: To test the use of wingtip rudders.
Few details of this machine have survived. It
was built and tested in 1929. Cheranovskii
was so distressed by the failure of the BICh-7
that he built this simple glider to see if wingtip
rudders could be made to work.
The BICh-8 was dubbed Treoogol'nik (little
triangle). It had an open cockpit and centreline skid. The wing was built as a centre section, integral with the nacelle, and outer
panels fitted with inboard elevators, outboard
ailerons and wingtip rudders with inset
hinges mounted on small fins.
This machine may have flown satisfactorily, because Cheranovskii repeated tip rudders in the BICh-11.
No data.
Cheranovskii with BICh-8.
BICh-8
BICh-11, RP-1
Purpose: To test rocket engine in flight.
The BICh-11 was designed in 1931 as a
bungee-launched glider to see if the concept
of using wingtip rudders could be made to
work. The glides may have been too brief to
be useful, because in 1932 Cheranovskii
added a small British engine more powerful
than the Tomtit used for BICh-3. In 1933
this aircraft was selected by MosGIRD, the
Moscow-based experimental rocket-engine
32
group, as a suitable test-bed with which to fly

a small liquid-propellant rocket engine,
which began bench-testing on 18th March
1933. The aircraft was again modified, with
the rocket engine(s) and their supply and
control system and a new wing of increased
span. It was then judged that the propulsion
system was too dangerous to fly. Note: some
accounts say the piston engine was installed
after the removal of the rocket engine(s), but
drawings show the piston-engined aircraft to
have had the original wing.
The BICh-11 was another wooden aircraft

with fabric covering, with a single seat,
hinged canopy and trailing-edge elevators
and ailerons. It appears to have had no landing gear other than a centreline skid. On the
wingtips were rudders, under which were
skids. In its powered form the engine was an
ABC Scorpion with two air-cooled cylinders,
rated at 27/35hp. The rocket engine was the
GIRD OR-2, designed by a team led by
FATsander, with a single thrust chamber
burning petrol (gasoline) and liquid oxygen.
B I C H - 1 1, RP-1
Sea-level thrust was 50kg (110 Ib). The BlCh11 was given a wing of greater span, and fitted with sprung landing gears and a tailskid.
There is confusion over whether one or two
OR-2 engines were installed (drawings suggest one), fed by a lagged spherical tank of
liquid oxygen and a smaller bottle of fuel, all
fed by gas pressure. In this form the aircraft
was painted red overall, with 'GIRD RP-1'
painted on each side of the vestigial fuselage.
RP stood for Raketnyi Planer, rocket glider.
It is not recorded whether this aircraft flew
satisfactorily with wingtip rudders, which
with BICh-7 had proved unsatisfactory.
Dimensions (as RP-1)

Span
Length
Wing area
12.1m
3.09m
20.0m 2
39 ft 8!^ in
10 ft 1% in
215 ft2
200kg
441 Ib
Weights
Empty
No other reliable data.
Cheranovskii with RP-1.
BICh-11
RP-1
33
BICH-14
BICh-14
Purpose: To test an improved twin-engined
'Parabola'.
In 1933 Cheranovskii schemed his first design
with twin engines, the BICh-10. Later in that
year he tested a tunnel model, and by 1934 he
had made so many (mostly minor) changes
that he redesignated it as the BICh-14. It interested the Central Construction Bureau,
and thus received their designation CCB-10
(TsKB-10). With their assistance the aircraft
was built, and the flight-test programme was
opened at the end of 1934 by Yuri I Piontkovskii. Having no slipstream, the rudder was
ineffective, and it was difficult to equalise pro-
peller thrusts. On landing, with engines idling,

a heavy stick force was needed to get the tail
down. Though it was not one of the better
BICh designs, having almost no directional
stability and being extremely reluctant to respond to pilot inputs, it was submitted for NIlWS testing. Here such famous pilots as
Stefanovskii, Petrov and Nyukhtikov flew it, or
attempted to. Various changes made this aircraft marginally acceptable, but attempts to
improve it ceased in 1937
Again this was a wooden aircraft, with a
skin of veneer (over the leading edge) and
fabric. An innovation was to use aluminium
to make the embryonic fuselage, which seated up to five, and the integral fin. The wing
BICh-14.
34
had four spars and 60 ribs, and was made as

a centre section, of 3.3m (10ft l0in) span, and
bolted outer panels. Close together on the
leading edge were the two l00hp M-ll engines, with Townend-ring cowls, aluminium
nacelles and U-2 type wooden propellers. As
before, virtually all the development effort
went into improving the trailing-edge controls, of which there were three on each wing,
all hung in the usual Junkers style below the
trailing edge. For most of the time the four
inner surfaces were elevators and the outers
ailerons, but at times the middle surfaces
were tested as flaps.
The BICh-14 apparently did nothing to enhance its designer's reputation.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
16.2m
6.0m
60m 2
53 ft 2 in
19 ft 9 in
646ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,285kg
1,900kg
2,833 Ib
4,1891b
Performance
Maximum speed, approx
Range
Landing speed
220km/h
370km
70km/h
137 mph
230 miles
43.5 mph
BICH-16 / BICn-17
BICh-16
Purpose: To attempt to fly on human
muscle power.
Ever one to explore fresh ideas, in 1934 Cheranovskii obtained financial support from
Osoaviakhim (the Society of Friends of the
Aviation and Chemical industries) for his pro-
posal to build a man-powered ornithopter

(flapping-wing aircraft). It could not be made
to fly.
This bird-like machine consisted mainly of
a flexible wing. The pilot placed his feet on a
rudder bar directly under the rudder and then
bent forward between two vestigial fins until
he could grasp the spade-grip which, via the
two struts seen in the photo, flapped the

wings. The two struts and vertical operating
rod were pivoted at the bottom to a curved
landing skid.
Kurchevskii was the designer of a family of

APK and DRP recoilless guns of large calibre
(45, 76.2, 80 and 100mm). These operated by
firing a projectile down the barrel and a nearly equal mass plus gun gas from a rear nozzle.
Fighters fitted with such guns included the
Grigorovich I-Z and Tupolev ANT-29 and ANT46. Cheranovskii completed the design of the
BICh-17 in 1935, but in February 1936
Kurchevskii was arrested and his design bureau 'liquidated'. By this time the BICh-17 was
'60 per cent complete'.
Data not recorded.

Two views of BICh-16.
BICh-17
Purpose: Single-seat fighter.
Design bureau: USP (Control of Special
Work) organised by I B Kurchevskii, to
which Cheranovskii was invited.
BICh-17
35
B I C H - 1 7 / BICH-18 MUSKULYOT
No detailed documentation on this fighter

survives, but the drawing shows that it was
a typical Cheranovskii 'parabola' design. The
structure was wood, with skins of birch
shpon (multi-ply veneer), the wing having
detachable outer panels. The engine was
a 480hp M-22 (imported or licence-made
Bristol Jupiter) driving a two-blade propeller.
The main landing gears retracted, probably
inwards, and the elevators were divided
into inner and outer sections by the two
80mm APK guns. The pilot sat under a typical
Cheranovskii upward-hinged canopy which
formed the front part of the fin. Aircraft left
incomplete.
ModelofBICh-17.
BICh-18 Muskulyot
Purpose: To attempt once more to fly on
human muscle power.
Undeterred by the total failure of BICh-16,
Cheranovskii persevered with the idea of flying like a bird and designed the totally different
BICh-18. The name meant 'muscle-power'.
On 10th August 1937 pilot R A Pishchuchev,
who weighed 58kg (1281b), glided 130m
(4261/2ft) off a bungee launch, without pedalling. He then did a pedalling flight, achieving
six wing cycles. He reported 'noticeable forward thrust', and flew 450m (1,476ft). Sustained flight was considered impossible.
The BICh-18 vaguely resembled a performance sailplane with a cockpit in the nose
and conventional tail. Much of the structure
was balsa. There were two wing sets, comprising the lower left and upper right wings
forming one unit and the upper left and lower
right forming the other. Both sets were
mounted on pivots on top of the fuselage and
arranged to rock through a 5 angle by cockpit pedals. As the wings rocked, their tips
never quite touching, the portion of each
wing aft of the main spar was free to flap up
and down to give propulsive thrust. One report states that the outer trailing-edge portions were ailerons.
If the evidence is correct this odd machine
was one of the few human-powered aircraft
to have achieved anything prior to the 1960s.
Dimensions
Length
Wing area
8.0m
4.48m
10.0m2
26 ft 3 in
14 ft 814 in
108ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
72 kg
130kg
1591b
287 Ib
Span
36
BICh-18.
BICH-20
PlONYER
BICh-20 Pionyer
Purpose: To test a small sporting aircraft of
tailless design.
Design bureau: B I Cheranovskii.
This attractive little machine was rolled out
on skis in late 1937 and first flown in 1938.
Later in that year it was fitted with a more
powerful engine, and with wheel landing
gear. Extensive testing, which included sustained turns at about 35 bank at different
heights, showed that the BICh-20 was stable
and controllable, and also could land very
slowly.
This aircraft was again a wooden structure,
with ply over the leading edge and the vestigial fuselage. The wing marked a further
change in aerodynamic form: having started
with 'parabola' designs, Cheranovskii
switched to delta (triangular) shapes, and
with the BICh-20 adopted a more common
form with straight taper, mainly on the leading edge. Trailing-edge controls comprised
inboard elevators and outboard ailerons, with
prominent operating levers. To enter the
cockpit the pilot hinged over to one side the
top of the fuselage and integral Plexiglas
canopy which formed the leading edge of the
fin. The aircraft was completed with Cheranovskii's ancient British 18hp Blackburne engine, in a metal cowling, and with sprung ski
landing gear. It was later fitted with wheels,
including a tailwheel, and a 20hp French
Aubier-Dunne engine.
All known records suggest that this aircraft
was completely successful.
Dimensions
Span
Length, original
re-engined
Wing area
6.9m
3.5m
3.56m
9.0 nf
22fl8in
Ilft6in
11 ft 8H in
97ft 2
Weights
Empty, original
re-engined
Loaded, original
re-engined
176kg
181kg
280kg
287kg
38815
399 Ib
6171b
633 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed, original
re-engined
Service ceiling
Range
Landing speed
160km/h
166km/h
4,000 m
320km
49km/h
99 mph
103 mph
13,120ft
199 miles
30 mph
BICh-20 Pionyer (Pioneer).
BICh-20
37
B I C H - 2 1 , SG-1
BICh-21,SG-l
Purpose: To use the tailless concept in a

more powerful aircraft for racing.
By the late 1930s Cheranovskii was confident
that he could apply his unusual configuration,
with no separate horizontal tail, to aircraft intended to reach much greater speeds. For the
big All-Union race organised by Osoaviakhim
to take place in August 1941 he designed a
minimalist aircraft broadly like the BICh-20
but with a far more powerful engine. Also
designated SG-1, from Samolyot Gonochnyi,
aeroplane for racing, it was completed in
1940, but not flown until June 1941. The Ger-
BICh-21
38
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
6.75m
4.74m
9.0m2
22 ft K in
15ft63/Un
97.0 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
526kg
37kg
643kg
l,1601b
81.6 Ib
l,4181b
Performance
at 4,000m (13,120 ft)
Landing speed
385 km/h
417km/h
80 km/h
239 mph
259 mph
50 mph
BICh-21.
man invasion of 22nd June resulted in the

race being cancelled.
With a configuration almost identical to
that of the BICh-20, the BICh-21 was likewise
all-wood, with polished shpon skin except
over the metal engine cowl and cockpit
canopy. Unlike the BICh-20 the wing was
made as a centre section (with anhedral) and
outer panels. This in turn resulted in a different arrangement of trailing-edge controls,
these having reduced chord, with a significant portion ahead of the trailing edge of the
wing, with the elevators divided into two
parts on each side. The engine was an MV-6,

the Bessonov licence-built Renault with six
aircooled cylinders, rated at 270hp. It drove
an imported Ratier two-blade two-pitch (fine
or coarse) propeller. A small fuel tank was inside each side of the centre section. Immediately outboard of these were the landing
gears, which retracted backwards under
pneumatic pressure.
No records survive of this aircraft's handling or of its fate.
BICH-22, CHE-22
BICh-22, Che-22
Purpose: To investigate a new aerodynamic
configuration.
Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii, by this
time working at the MAI (Moscow Aviation
Institute).
From 1947 Cheranovskii headed an OKB at
the MAI, whose excellent facilities he used in
a series of tailless projects. This glider was designed in winter 1948-49, and test flown by
IA Petrov at Tushino from 17th July 1949.
Having progressed from the 'parabola' to a
form of delta and then to a wing of normal tapered shape, this glider comprised a broad
flat lifting fuselage, to which were attached
conventional wings with modest sweepback.
A further innovation was to use more conventional trailing-edge controls, mounted on
the wing instead of below it. The original Che22 drawings show no vertical surfaces whatever, but later fixed fins were added on the
wingtips.
Flight testing appeared to go well, and in
late 1949 the DOSAV repair shops tooled up to
put the Che-22 into production. Unfortunately, while testing the first to come off the assembly line Petrov crashed and was killed,
and production was abandoned.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
7.5 m
5.04m
14nf
24 ft Tk in
16 ft 6% in
151ft 2
Weights
Empty
60kg
1321b
It is not known if this is the full-scale Che-22 or a

model.
Performance
Not recorded, but 'aerodynamic efficiency' (lift/drag ratio) was 18.
Che-22
39
BICH-24, (CHE-24) / BICH-26, (CHE-26)
BICh-24, (Che-24)
Purpose: To investigate the tailless delta
configuration.
With the advent of the jet age Cheranovskii
recognized that he should think in terms of
much lower aspect ratio. He followed his
1944 project by the graceful BICh-24 jet fighter, which he hoped to demonstrate in the
Tushino 'parade' of 1949. To prove its flying
qualities he first tunnel-tested the model
depicted.
Few details have been found, but the
model picture reproduced here shows the
configuration. Curiously, the documents on
the BICh-24 call it the Che-24. No air intake is
visible on the tunnel model, and it is not
known whether the 24 would have been a
turbojet or rocket aircraft.
It is not known if the full-scale aircraft was
built.
No data.
BICh-24 (Che-24) model.
BICh-26, (Che-26)
Purpose: Jet fighter.
After the War Cheranovskii had an enhanced
reputation, and he was able to build up a
small team of designers to assist him with
projects far more ambitious than those with
which he made his name. In June 1948 the
BICh-24 was followed by the BICh-25, a project for a jet fighter with variable-sweep wings
with outboard pivots, uncannily like the
American TFX projects of more than ten years
later. With the BICh-26 he returned to the

BICh-24 formula with a fixed planform of almost delta, or gothic-delta, outline. Though
Cheranovskii lived to the end of 1960 this project remained on the drawing board.
The BICh-26 was designed to have a single
Mikulin (later Tumanskii) AM-5 turbojet rated
at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust, fed by flush inlets
in the underside of the flattened forward fuselage. The latter could equally be described as
the centre section of the wing, to which the
conventional outer wings were attached. On
the trailing edge were inboard elevators and

outboard ailerons, and though one report
states that these surfaces were fully powered
they all had deeply inset hinges for aerodynamic balance. There were also upper and
lower rudders, again with inset hinges. No
other details have appeared.
Like its various jet predecessors, the BICh26 appears to have been an outstanding design with many features ahead of its time.
Dimensions
Span about
Length about
Wing area
7.0m
9.0m
27m 2
23ft
29 ft 7 in
291 ft2
Weights
Loaded
4,500 kg
9,921 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed Mach 1.7 at 7,000 m
equivalent to about
l,909km/h
Service ceiling
22,000m
BICh-26 (Che-26)
40
22,966ft
1,186 mph
72,000ft
B I C H - J E T P R O J E C T / B l S N O V A T SK
BICh jet project

Purpose: To design a jet fighter.
Again, the three-view drawing of this project
was discovered only recently. There is no evidence that construction was even started.
The drawing is dated 1944, at a time before
any German turbojets had been captured but
after publication of the existence of British
and US engines of this type. The only turbojet
then running in the Soviet Union was the
Lyul'ka VRD-2, a slim axial-compressor engine rated at 700kg (1,543 Ib) thrust. This was
probably the engine Cheranovskii had in
mind.
The configuration appears to be an outstanding one, similar to many fighter projects
of the present day. The engines were to have
been buried inside the broad and flat deltashaped wing, there being no fuselage. The
drawing shows the location of the cockpit,
two large guns, nosewheel-type landing gear
and four fuel tanks. Each wing carried a single control surface with a balancing area
ahead of the hinge. Clearly each surface

acted as a dual-function eleven. There was
no vertical tail, just like today's 'stealth' pro-
posals, and this could have made engine-out

situations difficult.
A truly remarkable project. No data.
ing the aircraft on its wheeled landing gear,

are dated '20/1 40' (Roman I, ie January). The
SK did not fly in this form until later, and flight
testing began on non-retractable skis. The
first photographs on skis were taken on ' 17/II
40'. Flight testing of the SK-2 began on 10th
November 1940, and was completed on 10th
January 1941. The pilot assigned to the programme was Georgi Mikhailovich Shiyanov.
The SK was a beautiful-looking low-wing
monoplane of diminutive proportions (making the l,050hp M-105 engine occupy nearly
half the fuselage), entirely of light-alloy
stressed-skin construction except for the fabric-covered ailerons and rudder. The wing
was of NACA 23014.5 (14.5% thick) aerofoil
profile, with wide-chord Vlasov (slotted split)
flaps inboard of the ailerons. Structurally the
wing was based on a Spitfire-like box with a
heavy leading edge extending back to the single main spar. The ribs were Duralumin
pressings. The outer surface (apparently of
the wing only) was covered with marquisette
(a fine light fabric) and powdered cork, all
held by nitrocellulose glue. When fully set the
surface was 'polished to the brilliance of a
mirror'.
The small wing was made in one piece and
designed so that it would be simple to fit different wings to the fuselage. The latter had a
cross-section of only 0.85m2 (9.15ft2), this
being the minimum to fit round the engine.

The pilot sat in a reclining seat in a cockpit
whose canopy was flush with the upper surface. For take-off and landing the roof over
the rear half of the canopy could be hinged up
and the seat raised to give a forward view.
Drag was further reduced by using an engine
cooling system filled with water circulating at
a gauge pressure of l.lkg/cm 2 (15.61b/in2),
which enabled the frontal area of the radiator
to be only 0.17m2 (1.8ft2), half the normal size.
The engine air inlet was underneath, ahead of
the radiator, and the oil-cooler inlet on top.
The propeller was a VISh-52 of 2.95m (9ft Sin)
diameter, with three blades with constantspeed control. Other features included 100%
mass balance on the elevators and rudder
and, according to Kosminkov, a hydraulic system to operate the flaps, pilot seat, cockpit
hood and the long-stroke (wheeled) landing
gear, which retracted inwards into bays
closed by multiple doors. The tailwheel was
steerable and fully retractable. The standard
of finish was high, and except for fabric areas
the surface was polished, with the spinner,
nose and a cheat-line painted red.
In fact, in 1939 retractable skis had not yet
been developed, and for this reason the SK
was initially limited to a modest speed (see
data). So far as is known the SK flew well,
though Shavrov records that the SK-2 (and by
Bisnovat SK
Purpose: Experimental high-speed aircraft.
Design Bureau: OKB of Matus Ruvimovich
Bisnovat, Moscow.
In the mid-1930s Bisnovat was working in the
newly formed OKO of VKTairov (pronounced tyrov), at Kiev. In 1938 he was permitted to organise his own team of design
engineers in order to build and test the fastest
aircraft possible, for research into wing profiles, structures, flight controls and other
problems. This was a time when aircraft technology was making rapid progress. Initially
his production base was the Central Workshops of CAHI (TsAGI), but by 1939 this group
was transferred to his own account.
Contracts were signed for two aircraft designated SK and SK-2. The former was to be
the research aircraft, while the SK-2 was to
have a conventional cockpit canopy and be
capable of carrying armament and other military equipment. Surprisingly no documents
appear to have been found recently giving details of this programme. All we have is
Shavrov's Vol.2 (published 1978 but written
much earlier) which says the SK 'was completed on skis in early 1939', and an article
written in 1977 by Konstantin Kosminkov
which says flight testing began 'at the start of
1940'. There is little doubt the latter date is
correct. The first series of photographs, show-
41
B l S N O V A T SK
implication the SK) suffered from various defects which prevented it from being accepted
as a fighter.
Compared with the SK, the SK-2 differed
most obviously in having a normal cockpit,
with a fixed more upright seat and conventional canopy, which could be jettisoned,
with a sliding window on the left. The engine
installation was modified, with a reprofiled
coolant radiator, engine air inlets in the wing
roots and the oil cooler under the cowling.
This left the area above the engine clear for a
neat installation of two 12.7mm BS heavy machine guns with their magazines (Kosminkov
states there was a 7.62mm as well). The SK-2
SK
42
airframe was slightly modified, notably by increasing the height of the fin and the span of
the horizontal tail from 2.75m (9ft /4in) to
3.26m (10ft 8%in). This aircraft was painted
overall, in a deep colour.
In 1940 these aircraft were the fastest in the
Soviet Union, and probably in the world. Despite their 'hot' nature, and high wing loading,
they appear to have been safe and attractive
machines. However, with so many La, MiG
and Yak fighters already in production, the
SK-2 had little chance of being adopted as a
fighter.
Dimensions (SK)
Span
Length
Wing area
7.3m
8.28m
9.57 nf
23 ft m in
27 ft 2 in
103ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,505kg
2,100kg
3,318 Ib
4,630 Ib
Performance
Max speed (wheels)
at sea level,
at 5,250m (17,224 ft)
(skis) at 5,500m (18,045 ft)
Service ceiling
Range about
597km/h
710km/h
577km/h
10,450m
1,000km
371 mph
441 mph
358.5 mph
34,285 ft
621 miles
B l S N O V A T SK
SK-2
Top left and right: Two views of SK-2

(on right, note split flaps).
Dimensions (SK-2)
Span
Length
Wing area
7.3m
8.285m
9.57m2
23 ftllX in
27 ft 214 in
103ft 2
Weight
Empty
Loaded
1,850kg
2,300kg
4,078 Ib
5,071 Ib
585km/h
665km/h
4min 19 sees
10,300m
350m
168km/h
500m
363.5 mph
413 mph
(16,404ft)
33,793ft
1,148ft
104 mph
1,640ft
Performance
Max speed at sea level
at 5,500m (18,045 ft)
service ceiling
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run
Opposite page: SK on skis and on wheels.
43
B O K - 1 , SS
BOK-1, SS
Purpose: To investigate high-altitude flight,
and if possible set records.
Design Bureau: The Byuro Osobykh
Konstruktsii, the Bureau of Special Design,
Smolensk. BOK was formed in 1930 in
Moscow as a subsidiary of CAHI (TsAGI) to
build experimental aircraft ordered by the
Revolutionary Military Council. Despite
starting on existing projects it made slow
progress, and in September 1931 was
transferred to the CCB (TsKB) as Brigade
No 6. It had undergone other
transformations, and been relocated at
Smolensk, by the time work began on BOK1. Director and Chief Designer was Vladimir
Antonovich Chizhevskii.
One of the bureau's first assignments was to
create an aircraft to explore flight at extreme
altitudes, seen as 'Nol priority'. Close links
between the USSR and Junkers resulted in
BOK sending a team to Dessau in 1932 to
BOK-1
44
study the Ju 49, and in particular its pressurized cabin. This strongly influenced their
thinking, and led to many studies for a
Soviet counterpart, but the only hardware
built was the balloon SSSR-1, with a pressurized gondola, which in 1933 exceeded 18km
(59,055ft). In 1934 a major conference of the
Academy of Sciences issued a programme
for future research, one requirement being a
high-altitude aircraft. The contract for the SS
(Stratosfernyi Samolyot, stratospheric aeroplane) was signed with BOK.
By this time Tupolev had designed the longrange RD (ANT-25), and to save time BOK
used this as the basis for the BOK-1. The main
task was to design the pressure cabin, but
there were many other major modifications.
The BOK-1 was built at GAZ (State Aircraft
Factory) No 35 at Smolensk, where it was first
flown by I F Petrov in (it is believed, in September) 1936. It was repeatedly modified in
order to climb higher. It was successfully put
through GOSNIl-GVF State testing by P M Stefanovskii. Shavrov speaks of 'a lighter variant'
achieving greater heights, but there is no evidence of a second BOK-1 having been built.
The airframe was originally that of one
of the military RD aircraft, but modified by
GAZ No 35. The span was reduced by fitting
new constant-taper outer panels, restressed
for significantly reduced gross weight
achieved by greatly reducing the fuel capacity. The massive retractable twin-wheel main
landing gears were replaced by lighter fixed
units with spatted single wheels. The engine
was an AM-34RN liquid-cooled V-12, rated
at 725hp, driving a three-blade fixed-pitch
propeller.
The main new feature was the pressure
cabin, seating the pilot and a backseater who
acted as observer, navigator and radio operator (though no radio was ever installed). This
cabin was a sealed drum of oval cross-section, with closely spaced frames to bear the
B O K - 1 , SS
bursting stress, constructed of Dl light alloy
with 1.8 or 2.0mm skin riveted over a sealing
compound. Design dP (pressure differential)
was 0.22kg/cm2 (3.2 lb/in2). The front and rear
were sealed by convex bulkheads. The entry
hatch was at the rear and an escape hatch
was provided in the roof. One report says
there was no room for parachutes, which
were stowed in the rear fuselage. There were
five small glazed portholes for the pilot and
one on each side ahead of the backseater.
There were also four small portholes to admit
light to the unpressurized rear fuselage. A regenerative system circulated the cabin air
and removed carbon dioxide (one report says
'and nitrogen'). A controlled leak through a
dump valve was made good by oxygen from
bottles to keep oxygen content approximately constant. The engine cooling circuit heated
a radiator covering the cabin floor to keep internal temperature at 15-18C.
Flight testing revealed satisfactory flying
characteristics and a lack of vibration. On the
other hand, on any prolonged flight the cabin
became uncomfortably hot. Despite this, and
electric heating of the portholes, the glazed
surfaces quickly misted over. In any case, external vision was judged dangerously inadequate.
Shavrov states that the cabin was qualified
for flight to '8,000m and more'; this is ambiguous, and the original design objective
was that the interior should be equivalent to
an altitude of 8,000m (26,250ft) at the design
ceiling of the aircraft. The engine cooling circuit was modified, and the portholes were replaced by double-layer sandwiches with not
only electric heating but also a dessicant
(moisture absorber) between the panes. This
overcame the condensation, but nothing
could be done to improve field of view.
In spring 1937 the BOK-1 was fitted with an
830hp M-34RNV engine, driving a four-blade
fixed-pitch propeller. This engine was then fitted with two TK-1 turbosuperchargers, designed by VI Dmitriyevskiy so that the
combined turbo exhausts also added a thrust
of 70kg (1541b). With the new engine installation the altitude performance was much
improved (see data), but during an attempt to
set a record for height reached with 500 and
1,000kg payload one of the turbos blew up.
Shavrov says merely 'the attempt failed', but
another account says the exploding turbo seriously damaged the forward fuselage and resulted in the BOK-1 being scrapped.
The BOK-1 was only the second aeroplane
in the world to be designed with a pressure
cabin. It achieved most of its objectives, but
failed to set any records.
Top: BOK-1 pressure cabin.
Centre: BOK-1 inboard profile.
Bottom: BOK-1 (final form).
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
30.0m
12.86m
78.8m2
98 ft 5 in
42 ft n in
848 ft2
Weights
Empty (as built)
(after engine change)
Fuel
Loaded
3,482 kg
3,600 kg
500kg
1,000kg
4,162kg
4,800kg
7,676 Ib
7,937 Ib
1,102 Ib
2,205 Ib
9,1751b
1 0,582 Ib
Performance
Max speed at sea leve
at 4,000m, (13, 123 ft)
to 9,000m
Ceiling
Endurance (both states)
210km/h
242km/h
260 krn/h
ISmin
38min
10,700m
14,100m
4 hours
130 mph
150 mph
162 mph
(16,404ft)
(29,528 ft)
35,100ft
46,260 ft
45
B O K - 2 , RK / B O K - 5
BOK-2, RK
Purpose: To test designer's experimental
wing.
Design Bureau: Aircraft constructed by BOK
to design of S S Krichevskii.
Sawa Syemenovich Krichevskii, called 'a talented designer' by historian Shavrov, spent
the early 1930s trying to create the most efficient aeroplane wing. He made many tunnel
models, eventually settling on a wing of high
aspect ratio constructed in front and rear sections. The rear part was hinged to the front
with a small intervening gap acting as a slot.

In flight, the intention was that the pilot would
select the optimum angle for the rear portion,
Shavrov commenting that 'this wing could always be flown in a drag-polar envelope'.
Krichevskii secured funding to build a research aircraft, called RK (Razreznoye Krylo,
slotted wing) and designated BOK-2 by the
construction bureau. The BOK-2 was completed in 1935 and flew successfully, but
Krichevskii died shortly afterwards. Documentation on this aircraft has never been found.
The BOK-2 was an extremely neat cantilever monoplane, with a single M-l 1 engine
rated at 11 Ohp. Shavrov comments that 'The
wing skin was polished to mirror brilliance
[suggesting all-metal construction]...it is
hard to say if its excellent performance was
due to its drag-polar envelope or to its perfect
aerodynamic shape'.
Despite its apparently excellent performance the RK appears to have had no impact
on the Soviet aviation ministry.
No data available.
modified aircraft was tested by the Nil WS

(air force flight-test institute), where it was
flown by such pilots at P M Stefanovskii and
M A Nyukhtikov. Stefanovskii is reported to
have said that the BOK-5 could be 'flown by
pilots of average or even below average ability' and to have been 'impressed by its acrobatic capability'.
The BOK-5 was a basically simple aircraft,
apart from the flight-control system. The airframe was made of duralumin. The wing was
of CAHI (TsAGI) 890/15 profile (15 per cent t/c
ratio), with two spars with tubular booms and
sheet webs, and ribs assembled from channel and angle sections, with fabric covering.
The short fuselage was a semi-monocoque,
with some box-section longerons and
pressed-sheet frames, the vertical tail being

integral. The main landing gears were described as 'U-2 type'. On the nose was a 1 00hp
M-l 1 engine in a Townend-ring cowl, driving
a two-blade metal propeller.
Modifications concentrated on the trailingedge controls. According to Shavrov there
were three movable surfaces on each wing,
extending over 21 per cent of the chord. The
outermost was a rectangular aileron, and the
two inboard surfaces acted in unison as elevators. Most photographs and drawings show
these surfaces as simple one-piece units
hinged to brackets below the trailing edge
and with a neutral setting of-5. However, recently a drawing (reproduced here) was discovered showing the main surfaces operated
BOK-5
Purpose: To experiment with a tailless (socalled 'flying wing') design.
Design Bureau: Bureau of Special Design,
Smolensk. Design team led by
V A Chizhevskii.
The idea for this small research aircraft came
from the BOK-2, though the two aircraft were
completely unrelated. In 1935 Chizhevskii
began studying tailless aircraft, and obtained
funding to build a simple research aircraft.
This was completed in early 1937, but was
then modified and did not fly until September, the pilot being I F Petrov. It 'flew satisfactorily...but crashed during a landing'. After
being repaired and modified its handling
qualities were greatly improved. In 1938 the
BOK-5
46
BOK-5
by servo action. The pilot's control cables can

be seen to drive a narrow-chord servo control
which in turn moves the main surface. The
neutral setting of the main surfaces can be
seen to be adjusted by a longitudinal-trim
wheel with cables to screw-jacks.
The BOK-5 was clearly a safe aircraft which
impressed two of the Soviet Union's best test
pilots, but it remained a one-off which was
soon forgotten.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
9.86m
4.365m
23.15m 2
32 ft 4^ in
14 ft 4 in
249ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
596kg
90kg
764kg
1,314 Ib
198 Ib
l,684lb
174km/h
120m
4,850 m
600km
4 hours
85km/h
200m
108 mph
394ft
15,900ft
373 miles
Performance
Maximum speed
Take-off run
Service ceiling
Range
Endurance
Landing speed/
run
53 mph
656ft
Top and centre: Two views of BOK-5.

Bottom: BOK-5 servo control.
47
BOK-7, K - 1 7 / BOK-8 / BOK-11
BOK-7, K-17
Purpose: To continue stratospheric-flight
research with an aircraft superior to BOK-1.
Smolensk. Chief designer Chizhevskii.
Design of this aircraft began in 1936. The
Tupolev RD was again used as the starting
point, but with features intended to enable
greater heights to be reached. The test pilots
were Petrov and Stefanovskii. According to
Shavrov the BOK-7 was first flown in 1938,
and 'showed the same characteristics as the
BOK-1'. Several two-man crews, including
such important long-distance pilots as Gromov, Yumashev, Danilin, Spirin, Baidukov,
Belyakov and others, spent periods of several
days sealed in the GK checking all aspects of
human life in preparation for proposed highaltitude long-distance flights in the BOK-15.
According to some historians the ultimate objective was a high-altitude circumnavigation,
and that the by-function designation of this
aircraft was K-17, from Krugosvetnyi (round
the world). Photographs originally thought to
be of the BOK-7 are now known to show the
BOK-11.
The BOK-7 had the full-span wing of the RD,

and aft-retracting landing gears, but compared with the RD the legs were redesigned
for much lighter gross weight, and fitted with
single wheels. Attention was concentrated on
the fuselage, which unlike the BOK-1 had the
GK (pressure cabin) integral with the airframe, the centre fuselage being a slim cylinder sealed by gaskets and adhesives, and
with grommets fitting round the control wires
and other services passing through apertures
in the wall. The normal oxygen supply to the
pilot and pilot/observer 'compensated for the
insignificant amount of air escaping'. The
sealed drum was fitted with two hemispherical domes, the front with eight and the rear
with six transparent portholes so that the occupants could see out, with a better view than
from the BOK-1. The GK was kept at pressure
by a tapping from a centrifugal PTsN (supercharger) blower driven by step-up gears
from the engine. The engine was an 890hp
M-34FRN fitted with two TK (turbosuperchargers). It is probable that these delivered
compressed air to the PTsN which then fed
the engine, the cabin supply being taken off a
small bleed pipe. Shavrov states that 'all systems worked well', and that the experiments
were 'very interesting'.
According to Shavrov this aircraft had 'the
first GK of the combined type' with both a
sealed compartment kept under pressure
and an oxygen supply. Some accounts state
that AI Filin at the NIl-WS worked out details
of the proposed circumnavigation, in 100hour stages, but that the project was abandoned after he was arrested in 1939 and
executed in Stalin's Terror of 1940. This aircraft led to the BOK-8, BOK-11 and BOK-15,
but it appears that no illustrations of it have
been discovered.
and K B Zhbanov. The complete installation

was on test by December 1939. Few details
have survived, and the aircraft never flew.
The armament system comprised two
power-driven barbettes or turrets each housing guns (one report says cannon but Shavrov
says 'machine guns') outside the pressure
cabin, aimed by a synchronous tracking system with thyratron servo control. The gunner,
to have been the third member of the BOK-11
crew, had a Rezunov optical sight system,

and the guns were slaved to follow the sightline to the target. Shavrov comments that this
system was tested three years before a similar scheme was devised for the Boeing B-29.
The armament scheme was never fitted to
the BOK-11 for reasons given in the description of that aircraft.
prototypes were ordered, and the first was

flown in 1940. However, in 1938 Chizhevskii
and several of his colleagues had been arrested (as was Filin soon after, see BOK-7),
and this put the whole of BOK's operations
under a cloud. As with many programmes at
this time of terror, nobody wanted to do anything that might lead to any kind of failure. So,
even though the first BOK-11 was delivered to
the NIl-WS (where its official walk-round
photographs were taken on 4th November
1940), test flying was soon abandoned. There
seems little doubt that reports of the 'BOK-15'
really refer to the BOK-11, in which case, for

Nil testing, the Nol aircraft was assigned to
A B Yumashev and the No 2 to G F Baidukov.
In general the BOK-1 Is were similar to the
BOK-7, apart from having the massive
1,500hp Charomskii ACh-40 diesel engine to
give increased range. The large radiator was
in a duct under the leading edge. Each of the
long-span ailerons had two mass-balances
on its underside, the tailplane was wirebraced, and the elevators and tabbed rudder
were fabric-covered. The armament system
and gunner station were never installed.
Dimensions
Length
Wing area
34.0m
12.9m
87m 2
111 ft W in
42 ft 4 in
936.5 ft2
Weights
Empty
3,900kg
8,598 Ib
Span
No other data.
BOK-8
Purpose: To devise an armament system for
the BOK-11.
Smolensk.
In 1937 the BOK began work on the BOK-11
(see below) and decided that it should
have defensive armament. The BOK-8 was
schemed to test this armament. Design was
entrusted to BOK engineers V S Kostyshkin
No data.
BOK-11
Purpose: Strategic reconnaissance.
Smolensk. Chief designer Chizhevskii.
Having created aircraft with impressive range
and high-altitude capability it was logical to go
on and derive an aircraft able to fly with impunity for great distances over hostile territory
carrying long-focus cameras. After argument
it was decided to make this aircraft a threeseater, the third man being a gunner controlling the defensive system tested with the
BOK-8. Design began in 1938. Two BOK-11
48
BOK-11 / BOLKHOVITINOV S
There is no reason to doubt that a properly

developed BOK-11 could have given the Soviet Union a strategic-reconnaissance capability considerably better than that of any other
country. As noted under the BOK-7, the atmosphere of fear in 1940 led to this programme being abandoned.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
34.0m
12.9m
87m 2
Illft6 3 /4in
42 ft 4 in
936.5ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
Maximum speed
4,090 kg
10,000kg
252 knYh
9,01 7 Ib
22,046 Ib
157 mph
OKB drawing showing that BOK-11 was originally intended as a bomber, with fixed landing gear.
No other data.
Two views of BOK-11.
Bolkhovitinov S
Purpose: Ultra-fast attack bomber.
Design Bureau: WIA (air force engineering
academy) located at the Zhukovskii
Academy, Moscow, where Viktor
Fedorovich Bolkhovitinov was Professor of
Aircraft Design and head of design team.
The objective was to make the fastest
bomber in the world, by using a fighter-type
layout with two powerful engines in tandem.
This arrangement was adopted in order to
achieve engine-out safety with minimum
drag. Design of the propulsion system began
in 1936 and of the aircraft itself a year later.
The designation stood for Sparka (Twin), but
other designations were S 2M-103 (in usual
Soviet style, showing the engines), BBS-1
(short-range bomber, fast, the S here meaning Skorostnii, speedy) and LB-S (light
bomber, twin). Construction of the single prototype began in July 1938, the first flight was
made by B N Kudrin in late 1939, and NIl-WS
testing took place between March and July
1940, the pilots being Kudrin and A I K a banov. It was found that take-off run was excessive. In 1940-41 the aircraft was subjected
to major modifications. ZI Itskovich redesigned the wing with increased area and a
changed aerofoil profile. A different front en-
gine was fitted, and the rear engine and its

propeller were replaced by an inert mass.
The oil coolers were incorporated in the main
radiator duct. As the redesigned aircraft
neared completion snow was still on the
ground, and the landing gears were all replaced by fixed skis.
No way was found to make proper use of
the bay previously occupied by the rear engine, and in any case performance was now
unimpressive. After the German invasion
work was abandoned. Plans for an improved
S bomber and a derived I (or I-1) fighter with
two M-107 engines were also dropped.
The airframe was entirely a modern lightalloy stressed-skin structure. The wing was
based on a structural box with two plate spars
with flanged lightening holes, sheet ribs and
heavy upper and lower skins with flush riveting. The fuselage basically comprised top,
bottom and side panels all joined to four
strong angle-section longerons (Shavrov:
'later this construction was used for the IL-28',
a post-war jet bomber). The twin-finned tail
had thin Dl skin throughout, the rudders having inset balanced hinges, the tailplanes
being pivoted and driven by irreversible trimming motors and the elevators having trim
tabs and a variable geared drive. Each main
landing gear retracted electrically backwards, the wheel turning through 90.
The 960hp M-103 engines (V-12 liquidcooled derived from the Hispano-Suiza 12Y)
were mounted in tandem, the rear engine driving the rear unit of the contra-rotating sixblade propeller. Some reports state that the
drive was taken via left/right twin shafts past
the front engine's crankcase, but in fact (as in
the Italian Macchi M.C.72 racing seaplane of
1933) the rear engine drove a single shaft between the front-engine cylinder blocks which
finally passed through the centre of the frontengine propeller shaft. Both engines were
served by a large ducted radiator with a controllable exit flap (this was positioned by one
of the 29 on-board electric actuators) and two
oil coolers were fitted in ducts on each side of
the front engine. Four fuel tanks were housed
between the wing spars, and on the trailing
edge were electrically driven slotted flaps (in
several reports, incorrectly called Fowler
type).
Pilot and navigator sat in tandem, far apart
under a long Plexiglas canopy. The navigator
also had a bomb sight, and the entire area
around his seat was skinned in Plexiglas.
Turning to the rear he could fire a 7.62mm
ShKAS, and it was the intention later to re49
BOLKHOVITINOV S
place this by twin 12.7mm UBT. Behind the

rear spar, under the pilot's cockpit, was a bay
housing 400kg (882 Ib) of bombs, with two
electrically driven doors. It was the intention
later to fit fixed guns in the wings.
The second wing, of NACA-230 profile,
gave improved field length. One report states
that a remotely controlled ShKAS was added
in the extreme tail, but this does not appear in
any known photographs. Continued potentially dangerous problems with the rear engine and its drive resulted in this being
removed. The front engine was changed to
an M-l 05P, of unchanged 960hp, driving a single three-blade propeller. Even with weight
considerably reduced the S was then judged
a failure, though tandem-engine studies continued. The factory was tooled up for Pe-2
production.
Though an article by Ing V Mikhailov and

Ing VPerov states that, following initial Nil
testing 'the design team was instructed to
continue development', there is no doubt the
S was always on the verge of success but
never getting there. The high wing loading
and the failure to solve the rear-engine drive
problem made it one of the programmes
abandoned after the invasion of June 1941.
Dimensions
Span (original)
(new wing)
Length (original)
(one engine)
Wing area (original)
(new wing)
11.38m
12.2m
13.2m
13.0m
22.9 m2
23.43m2
37 ft 4 in
40 ft X in
43 ft 4 in
42ft7 3 /iin
246.5ft2
252.2 ft2
S (as built)
S (as built).
50
S (as built).
Weights
Empty
not discovered
Loaded (original)
5,652kg
1 2,460 Ib
(lightened, to reduce take-off run) 5,150 kg 11 ,354 to
(single engine)
4,000kg
8,818 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed (original)
at 4,600m (15,092 ft)
(oneM-105P)
at 4,400m (14,436ft)
Range (two engines) about
Take-off run (original)
(lightened)
(one engine)
Landing speed (original)
(lightened)
(one engine)
570km/h
354 mph
400 km/h
700km
1,045m
860m
700m
180 km/h
1 65 km/h
135 km/h
248.5 mph
435 miles
3,428ft
2,822ft
2,297 ft
112 mph
102.5 mph
84 mph
B O L K H O V I T I N O V S / C H E T V E R 1 K O V SPL
S (as built).
S (converted to single engine).
Chetverikov SPL
Purpose: Reconnaissance from submarines.
Design Bureau: Brigade of Ivan
Vyacheslavovich Chetverikov in CAHI
(TsAGI).
Later a famous designer of marine aircraft in
his own right, Chetverikov was intrigued by
the British submarine M-2, which carried a
small aircraft for reconnaissance purposes.
Though this proved a disaster in January 1932
when the M-2 was dived with the hangar door
open, this did not invalidate the basic concept. Funds were obtained from both the MA
(naval aviation) and the Glavsevmorput'
(Chief Administration of Polar Aviation Northern Sea Route). Accordingly Chetverikov designed a small monoplane in two forms: the
OSGA-101 amphibian for Glavsevmorput' for
use from icebreakers and the SPL (Samolyot
dlya Povodnikh Lodok, aeroplane for submarine boats), a slightly smaller non-amphibious
flying boat able to fold into a small hangar.

OSGA flew in spring 1934. The SPL was completed in December 1934, taken by rail to Sevastopol and flown there by A V Krzhizhevskii
in spring 1935. Testing was completed on
29th August 1935. Though the SPL was generally satisfactory, the idea of submarines with
aircraft hangars was never adopted by the
MA.
Like its predecessor, the SPL was a neat
monoplane, of mainly wooden construction
but with the tail made of Dl alloy covered
with fabric and carried on booms of welded
steel tube through which the control wires
passed. The cockpit seated a pilot and observer side-by-side, and there was provision
for a third seat or cargo immediately to the
rear. The engine was a modest M-l 1 rated at
l00hp, in a Townend-ring cowl and driving a
two-blade wooden propeller. The wings
were fitted with plain flaps, and could be un-
locked and manually folded back with the

upper surface facing outwards, the underwing floats also being hinged. The engine nacelle, on a steel-tube pylon, could likewise be
pivoted straight back through 90, so that after
four minutes the whole aircraft could be
pushed inside a watertight drum 7.45m (24ft
5Kin) long and 2.5m (8ft 21/2in) diameter (internal dimensions).
One report states that the MA claimed the
SPL to have 'inadequate seaworthiness',
while another states that it was difficult to
take off from the open sea and was prone to
stall because of poor longitudinal stability.
The underlying factor was that the MA decided not to build large submarines with SPL
hangars.
Two views of SPL folded.
51
C H E T V E R I K O V SPL
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
Maximum
9.5m
7.4m
13.4m2
31 ft 6 in
24 ft 3V. in
144ft 2
592kg
60+ 10 kg
800kg
879kg
1,30511)
132+2215
l,7641b
1, 9381b
Performance
Maximum speed
186 km/h
Cruising speed at 2,500 m (8,200 ft) 183 km/h
Time to climb to 1 ,000 m
3.9 min
to 3,000 m
15.3min
Service ceiling
5,400m
Range
400km
Alighting speed
85 km/h
11 5.6 mph
114 mph
(3,280ft)
(9,843ft)
17,717ft
248 miles
53 mph
SPL (the man is not Chetverikov) with ARK-3-2 in

background.
52
EJECTION-SEAT TEST-BEDS
Ejection-seat Test-beds
Purpose: To modify established jet aircraft
in order to test ejection-seats.
Design Bureau: Initially the seats were
designed by special teams formed in the jetaircraft OKBs. However, in 1952 a special
organization was created to specialize in
life-support and safety-equipment systems,
and in 1994 this was transformed into NPP
Zvezda (Star) joint-stock company. From the
1960s this organization captured the market
until it was providing ejection-seats for
virtually all Soviet combat aircraft.
Soviet ejection-seats, called Katapul'tnoye
Kreslo, were initially diverse, and drew heavily on designs by US, Swedish and, especially,
the British Martin-Baker companies. After
1945 a few flight tests took place with German
seats, developed in 1944 for such aircraft as
the He 219 and Do 335. The detailed history
has not been written, but some of the earliest
Pe-2 (German seat) test-bed.
flight tests were carried out from about mid1947. Probably the first Soviet ejection-seat
was designed in the MiG OKB from January
1947. On 11th March 1947 this OKB received
an order to test this seat in the FT-2, the second prototype of the M1G-9UTI trainer. After
ten test ejections in a ground rig the experimental seat, weighing 128.5kg (283 Ib), was
initially installed in the considerably modified
rear cockpit of FT-1 (the first two-seater
which was still with the MiG OKB). Flight testing took place throughout the first half of
1948, but only up to 700km/h (435mph). The
very similar FT-2 was then fitted with two
ejection-seats, the front one at a rail angle of
22.5 and the rear at 18.5. The modified aircraft was delivered to NIl-WS, the air force
flight test institute, on 29th September 1948.
After two tests with dummies live testing continued between 7th October and 13th November 1948. An automatic sequence firing
the canopies and seats was then perfected

(though of course the FT-2 was never left with
both cockpits empty). From the results of
these tests the OKB gradually developed the
first production seat, called the SK. This was
then developed through 14 production series.
Probably the next Soviet aircraft to be used
for ejection-seat testing was the Ilyushin IL-28
tactical twin-jet bomber. First flown on 8th
July 1948, using the imported Rolls-Royce
Nene and later the Nene-derived RD-45 and
VK-1 A, this excellent aircraft was used for surprising tests using seats fired from the extreme tail. Unlike the very similar British
Canberra, which was undefended, for this
aircraft the Ilyushin OKB developed a powerful tail turret with two NR-23 guns, manned by
the radio operator who had an escape chute.
In several aircraft the turret was replaced by a
special test installation for an ejection-seat.
Both upward- and downward-firing seats
MiG-9 (FT-1) test-bed.
UTI MiG-15 (ST-10) test-bed.
IL-28 (downward firing) test-bed.
Right: Yak-25 (modified canopy).
53
EJECTION-SEAT TEST-BEDS
were tested, and cine films showed that in

some cases firing the seat imparted to the aircraft a pronounced kick in the pitching plane,
either nose-up or nose-down. Some of the
IL-28 seat tests were at airspeeds exceeding
800km/h (497mph).
Even higher speeds were reached during
seat testing with ST-10 aircraft, which were
specially modified two-seat UTI MiG-15s. This
was the principal type used from 1951 onwards in development of the SK and SK-1
seats which were used in thousands of early
MiG jets, and later for the much better KM-1
family used in later MiG fighters, cine films
and photographs have shown seats being
fired from ST-lOs with callsigns 15, 23, 101U,
102U and 401U. These aircraft were painted
with bold horizontal black lines in known positions to assist determination of the seat trajectory. What is surprising is that about half
the photographs of tests appear to have involved firing the test seat from the front cockpit. Using dummies and human occupants
many hundreds of combinations of canopy,
seat, ejection gun, stabilizing drogue and
parachute system were investigated. Early SK
seats were notoriously unreliable, and when
they did fire on command the pilot often suffered spinal damage. Gradually, and especially after the ST-10 testing began, the SK
seats improved. A faceblind was provided to
54
protect the occupant's face, additional firing

triggers were incorporated in both armrests,
improved ejection guns were developed imparting a precisely repeatable phased acceleration using different cartridges for summer
and winter, and the original restrictive limits
of airspeed and altitude were progressively
increased. A photograph shows 101U, one of
the aircraft with a completely open front
cockpit. The final ST-10,401 U, was fitted with
a new type of front-cockpit canopy which
was hinged at the rear to the top of the seat so
that on ejection the canopy served as a windbreak to protect the occupant. This became a
feature of early MiG-21 fighters.
Photographs have been found of at least
two Yak-25L (Laboratoriya) seat-test aircraft.
The production night fighter seated the pilot
and radar operator in tandem under a large
one-piece canopy which opened by sliding
on rails 2.2m (7ft Sin) to the rear. Both the seat
test-beds had a pressure bulkhead separating
the front cockpit from the rear cockpit, from
which the seat under test was fired. Aircraft
callsign 18 retained the original type of
canopy but with the portion over the rear
cockpit opaque (on being jettisoned this usually passed perilously close to the tail). Aircraft callsign 01 had a completely modified
arrangement, the pilot having a short upwardhinged canopy and the test cockpit having a
Top: Sukhoi Su-9U test-bed.

Above left: Yak-25L zero-altitude ejection-seat test.
Above right: Test ejection from MiG-25U.
prominent light-alloy superstructure which in

most tests was open at the top. This aircraft
was later used to test the Yakovlev OKB's
KYa-1 rocket-boosted seat, the first to have
'zero/zero' capability (able to be fired with the
aircraft at rest on the ground).
The only Sukhoi aircraft known to have
been an ejection-seat test-bed was an Su-9U
with callsign Red 10. Liberally covered on the
starboard side with black lines for use as trajectory references, this Mach-2 aircraft always
fired the test seat from the rear cockpit. This
was open-topped and sealed from the pressurized front cockpit. The only photographs
released on this aircraft must have been
taken since the 1970s, as they show modern
Zvezda zero/zero rocket assisted seats, at
least one being of the K-36 family. One photograph shows a test at ground level.
While the Su-(U was used for tests at high
subsonic Mach numbers, at least on M1G-25U
has been used to confirm behaviour in ejections at supersonic speeds. Details of the
seats and Mach numbers have yet to be disclosed, but Zvezda believe this aircraft has
been used to check successful ejections at
mach numbers significantly higher than anywhere else in the world.
E X P E R I M E N T A L L A N D I N G GEARS
Experimental landing gears

Purpose: To use aircraft to test
experimental landing gears.
Design Bureau: Various.
No country has as much real estate as the former Soviet Union, and the land surface is at
times soft mud, sand, snow and hard frozen.
Several designers concentrated on devising
landing gears that would enable aircraft to
operate from almost any surface. One of the
first was N A Chechubalin, who in the 1930s
was working at BRIZe, a division of Glavsevmorput', the chief administration of northern
(Arctic) sea routes. He devised neat tracked
main gears to spread the load and enable aircraft to operate from extraordinarily soft surfaces. His experimental gears were tested on
a U-2 and a much heavier Polikarpov R-5.
In 1943 SAMostovoi picked up where
Chechubalin had left off and designed caterpillar main landing gears for an Li-2 transport
(the Soviet derivative of the DC-3) These
gears were retractable, and made little difference to the performance of the aircraft, but
they were 'unreliable in operation' and were
therefore not put into production. Photographs have not yet been found.
In 1937 Nikolai Ivanovich Yefremov collaborated with Aleksandr Davidovich Nadiradze
Chechubalin landing gear on R-5 No 403.
to design a unique inflatable gear which offered a totally different way of reducing footprint pressure in order to operate from almost
any surface. Their answer was an 'air pillow'
inflated under a semi-rigid upper sheet attached under the aircraft centreline. The
scheme was called SEN, from the Russian for
'Aircraft Yefremov/Nadiradze'. The pillow
was tested on a Yakovlev AIR-20 (UT-2),
which was fitted with a 20hp motorcycle engine driving a compressor to keep the bag inflated. The only known photo does not show
the wingtips clearly, so it is not known if
wingtip skids were needed to stop the aircraft
rolling over. In 1940 the SEN was test-flown by
such famous pilots as Gromov, Shelest and
Yumashev, but it never went into general use.
In 1991 the new private company Aeroric,
at Nizhny Novgorod (in Communist days
called Gorkii), began the design of amultirole
transport called Dingo. Powered by a 1,100shp Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65B turboprop, driving a Hartzell five-blade pusher
propeller, the Dingo is made mainly of light
alloy and accommodates one or two pilots
and up to eight passengers or up to 850kg
(1,8741b) of cargo. Its most unusual feature is
that it has no conventional landing gear. Instead it has a 250hp Kaluga TBA-200 (in effect
a turbofan) which generates an air cushion

underneath, contained by inflated air bladders along each side and hinged flaps at front
and rear. At full load the ground pressure is a
mere 0.035kg/cm2 (71.71b/ft 2 ), enabling the
Dingo to ride over water, snow or any other
surface and to cross ditches, ledges and projections up to 30cm (1ft) high. Cruising speed
is275km/h(170mph).
Though a surface skimmer rather than an
aeroplane, the Stela M.52 seen at the 1995
Zhukovskii airshow was interesting for riding
on an air cushion. This is contained by side
skegs (underfins), a large rear flap and front
hinged curtains.
Aeroric Dingo.
SEN (Yefremov) landing gear on UT-2.
Stela M.52.
55
F L O R O V 4302
Florov 4302
Purpose: Rocket-propelled aircraft for
aerodynamic research.
Design Bureau: Ilya Florentyevich Florov
(1908-83) had a long career at several OKBs
and State organizations, some of his products
being biplane fighters designed with
A A Borovkov. In 1943 he headed a design
cell in NIl-WS (air force state test institute).
In 1943 Florov was assigned the task of creating a small rocket-engined aircraft to test
wing profiles, flight-control systems and other
features. At this time published German papers on swept wings (1935) had not been
studied. Three examples of No 4302 were
funded, and Nil pilots A F Pakhomov and I F
Yakubov were assigned to the programme.
The No 1 aircraft was not fitted with an engine,
and made 46 flights from late 1946, on each
occasion being towed to about 5,000m
(16,400ft) by a Tu-2. The No 2 was flown
under power, the first take-off (by Pakhomov)
being in August 1947. In the same month the
programme was terminated, funds being
transferred to the MiG I-270. At this time the
No 3 aircraft had for some time been complete but waiting for its RD-2M-3 engine.
The 4302 was a small aircraft with a fuselage dictated by the size of cockpit and proThree-view of 4302 No 3 with
side elevation of No 2 (top right).
56
pellant tanks. Construction was entirely lightalloy stressed skin, with a very good surface
finish. The untapered wings had a 13-per-cent
laminar CAHI (TsAGI) profile devised by
G P Svishchev. They were made as one unit
attached above the fuselage, with downturned tips. On each trailing edge were three
sections of slotted flap which were also operated in opposition for lateral control. The tail
comprised a fixed fin and tailplane, with fixed
endplate fins, and manually driven rudder
and elevators with inset hinges and mass balances. The pilot had a small pressurized
cockpit in the nose with an upward-hinged
canopy. The No 1 aircraft was completed with
conventional fixed landing gear (using some
La-5FN parts), for slow-speed glider flights.
The Nos 2 and 3 were designed to take off
from a tricycle-gear trolley and land on a centreline skid and tailwheel. The No 2 was fitted
with a liquid rocket by A M Isayev assisted by
L S Dushkin rated at 1,100kg (2,425 Ib) at sea
level. In the rear fuselage was a large tank for
red fuming nitric acid made of 3mm Enerzh
18-8 stainless, wrapped with OVS wire to
withstand gas feed pressure. Behind was the
tank of petrol (gasoline). Later, in 1947 a more
powerful 1,140kg (2,513 Ib) Dushkin engine
was fitted. The No 3 aircraft was to have been
fitted with an RD-2M-3 engine developed by

Dushkin and V P Glushko, with main and
cruise chambers with sea-level ratings of
1,450 and 400kg (3,197 and 882 Ib). In this
condition it was to have been designated
No 4303. One report says that an RD-2M or RD2M-3 was retrofitted to No 2, but there is no
record of it flying with this engine.
These aircraft appear to have left no record
of aerodynamic achievement.
Dimensions
Span (all)
Length (No 2)
(No 3)
Wing area (all)
6.932m
7.124m
7.152m
8.85 nf
22 ft 9 in
23 ft VA in
23 ft 5% in
95.26ft2
Weights
Empty (No 1)
Loaded (No 1)
(No 3)
970kg
1,350kg
1,750kg
2,138 Ib
2,976 Ib
3,859 Ib
Performance
Max speed (No 2, achieved) 826km/h
Landing speed (all)
125km/h
513 mph
78 mph
FLOROV 4302 / G R I G O R O V I C H I-Z
Above left: 4302 Nol.

Above right: 4302 No 2 in take-off configuration.
Left: 4302 No 2 after landing.
Grigorovich I-Z
Purpose: To evaluate a fighter with APK
recoilless cannon.
Design Bureau: Team led by Dmitrii
Pavlovich Grigorovich, in VT (internal
prison) run by OGPU (secret police, later
NKVD) at Factory No 39.
The story of the development in the Soviet
Union of large-calibre recoilless guns, under
the leadership of L V Kurchevskii, is outlined
in the entry on the Tupolev ANT-23. By the
end of the 1920s design bureaux were receiving contracts for experimental fighters designed to be armed with such weapons. In
late 1929 Grigorovich was sent to Central
Construction Bureau 7, which was really
Hangar 7 at Factory 39, an OGPU secure
prison for designers. Here he led the design of
the Z, a secret monoplane to be armed with
two 76.2mm (Sin) APK-4 guns. To speed construction the powerplant group and forward
fuselage of the first prototype were the same
as those of the Polikarpov I-5, which was also
built in Hangar 7. The complete aircraft,
called I-Z (Fighter Z) was flown by Benedikt
Bukhgol'ts in (it is believed) early May 1931. It
was inspected by Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov
and others on 6th July 1931. Subsequently a
small series of 21 production I-Z fighters were
produced at GAZ No 39. These were still regarded as experimental. In February/March
1933 aircraft No 39009 was placed on a high
platform and used for firing trials, and in September 1933 No 39010 underwent NIl-WS
testing. Two of these aircraft were later
used in Zveno trials, as described under
Vakhmistrov. In 1934-35 Factory No 135 at
Kharkov built a further 72, with modifications,
designated IP-1. These saw only limited use,
partly because of difficult spin recovery, but
were not considered as experimental.
At this time monoplanes were still structurally difficult, and the wing, though of
torch-welded stainless (Enerzh-6) lattice construction, still needed underwing bracing to
the fixed landing gears. Apart from the semimonocoque rear fuselage, the covering of the
whole airframe was fabric. The prototype had
a Bristol Jupiter, in a helmeted cowling, while
the first production batch had the same
480hp engine built under licence as the M-22
and cowled in a Townend ring. The second
batch, from Kharkov, had the 700hp M-25
(Wright Cyclone). The main landing gears
variously had spatted wheels, plain wheels or
skis. The guns were suspended from both
main spars outboard of the struts (just inboard on the first prototype), and were fed at
a slow rate from a seven-round magazine in
the wing. A PV-1 machine gun was fitted to
right of centre ahead of the windscreen to assist aiming using the optical sight. The
tailplane was mounted high to avoid the rear
blast from the APK-4s.
This neat aircraft did all that was expected

of it, but none of Kurchevskii's big guns ever
became operational.
I-Z cockpit.
57
G R I G O R O V I C H I-Z
I-Z (upper side view, prototype;

lower side view, series version).
Far left: I-Z series aircraft.

Left: Close-up of APK-4.
Bottom left: Aircraft I-Z No 39009 rigged for
firing trials.
Dimensions (first I-Z)

Span
Length
Wing area
Weights
Empty
Loaded
Performance
Time to climb to 5 km
Service ceiling
Range
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run
58
11.5m
7.645m
19.6m2
37 ft 8% in
25 ft 1 in
21 lft !
1,180kg
1,648kg
2,601 Ib
3,633 Ib
259km/h
14min
7km
600km
110m
l00km/h
180m
161 mph
(16,400ft)
22,970ft
373 miles
361ft
62 mph
591ft
GROKHOVSKII G-31, Y A K O B A L K S N I S , STREKOZA
Grokhovskii G-31, Yakob Alksnis, Strekoza

Purpose: To build a troop-carrying glider;
this was later modified into powered
aircraft.
Design Bureau: WS-RKKA (Red Army
special design team for aviation forces),
director Pavel Ignatyevich Grokhovskii
(1899-1946).
Grokhovskii had a brief but intense career,
forming a branch of WS-RKKA in Leningrad
in 1934 and seeing it liquidated in 1936.
Most of his designs were concerned with assault by airborne forces, and all showed a remarkable originality. The G-61 was a 'people
pod' able to house seven armed troops and
actually flown attached under each wing of
an R-5, a mass-produced 700hp biplane. The
G-31 (in some documents called G-63i>/s),
named for WS Gen Yakob Alksnis, was a
giant cargo glider, designed by Grokhovskii
and B D Urlapov to carry troops lying inside
the wing. From this Grokhovskii produced
the G-31 powered aircraft. First flown in late
1935, it flew to Moscow in 1936 for RKKA testing. It was eventually decided that the
arrangement of troops packed inside the

wing, with no chance of escape in flight, was
unacceptable. In any case, the concept of a
powered glider for assault operations was
eventually considered unsound.
Sharing a strengthened version of almost
the same airframe as the glider, the G-31
(again named for Alksnis and also dubbed
Strekoza, dragonfly) was a graceful aircraft as
befits a powered version of a glider. Though
intended for military purposes it was one of
several types designed in the 1930s with no
consideration of speed, because this was
not thought significant. The airframe was
wooden, with a vestigial fuselage of multiply
veneer formed by presses with double curvature. On the front was a puny 1 00hp M-l 1 fivecylinder radial. Subsequently Grokhovskii
built a G-31 with a strengthened structure
matched to the 700hp M-25, an imported
(later licensed) Wright R-1820 Cyclone. This
was fitted in a Townend-ring cowl and it
drove a Hamilton light-alloy ground-adjustable propeller. It is believed that later a
three-blade flight-variable Hamilton Standard
was fitted. As in the glider there were cockpits

for a pilot and flight engineer, while between
the wing ribs were compartments for 18
troops, nine in each wing (drawings show
eight in each wing). They boarded and were
extracted through hinged leading edges,
which were transparent, as in the G-61 pods.
Few details of the G-31 have survived.
Clearly the naming of this aircraft and its
predecessor after Alksnis was a mistake,
because he was arrested in 1936 and executed in 1938. The close-knit Grokhovskii team
was 'liquidated' very soon after the General's
arrest.
Dimensions (M-25 engine)

Span
28.0m
Length
13.9m
70.5m2
Wing area
91 ft M in
45 ft 7^ in
759 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,400kg
3,200kg
3,086 Ib
7,055 Ib
Performance
Maximum and cruising
speed limited to
135km/h
84 mph
No other data.
Left: G-31 with M-25 engine.

Below left: G-31 glider.
Below right: G-31 with M-l 1 engine.
59
G R O K H O V S K I I G-31, Y A K O B A L K S N I S , S T R E K O Z A
Surprisingly dissimilar three-views of the G-31

glider (inset on one shows original landing gear).
60
GROKHOVSKII
G-37,
ULK
Grokhovskii G-37, ULK

Purpose: 'Universal flying wing'.
Design Bureau: WS-RKKA Leningrad, Chief
Designer Vladimir Rentel.
The numbering of 'Grokhovskii' aircraft is difficult to interpret, and this aircraft preceded
the G-31. The concept was that of a versatile
aircraft for airborne assault, but it was soon
evident that a Universalnoye Letayushchyeye
Krylo, universal flying wing, would have wide
commercial appeal. Construction was assigned to Vladimir Rentel, who had the aircraft built in Grebno (rowing) port, Leningrad.
It was taken to the airfield where from November 1935 it was tested by VPChkalov,
who was impressed. He later flew it to
Moscow in 2hrs SOmin (average 250km/h,
155mph, which Shavrov says was 'almost a
record'). The G-37 was used for a long series
of tests, including dropping of heavy loads.
The G-37 was a remarkably capable early
example of an aeroplane designed to lift a detachable payload container (later types in-
cluded the Fi333, Miles M.68 and Fairchild

XC-120). To save time the wing was that of an
ANT-9 (PS-9), made of Kolchug duralumin
with mainly corrugated dural skin, though the
ailerons did not project beyond the wing tips.
It is possible this wing came from a crashed
PS-9 along with the 680hp BMW VI watercooled V-12 engines, though these were in a
different installation. The engine cowls were
extended down into large trousers over the
main landing gears, which contained the engine-cooling radiators. At the rear they extended into tail booms, all these structures being of
light alloy. Each boom had a tailwheel, and the
twin-finned tail was duralumin with fabric covering. On the centreline the wing was expanded into a small nacelle for the pilot and
engineer. The underside of the centre wing
was provided with attachments for a standard
pre-loaded payload container, though no photographs have been found with this in place.
The completed G-37 was painted with gay
stripes and stylized red stars and slogans.
There seems little doubt that this was an

excellent and potentially versatile aircraft,
and it is not known why it was never ordered
for military or civil use.
Dimensions
Span
22.5m
(possibly for a develops:d version,
Shavrov cites)
23.7m
Length
13.85m
(Shavrov)
16.0m
Wing area
84.0m2
77 ft 9/4 in
45 ft 5% in
52 ft 6 in
904 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
3,100kg
5,700kg
6,834 Ib
1 2,566 Ib
235km/h
285 km/h
146 mph
177 mph
250 km/h
16min
6,500 m
90 km/h
155 mph
(19,685ft)
21,325ft
56 mph
Performance
at 2,500m (8,200ft)
Cruising speed at
2,500m (8,200 ft)
Service ceiling
Landing speed
73ft9 3 /4in
G-37 with payload container
61
G R O K H O V S K I I G-37, U L K / G R U S H I N S P I - T A N D E M , M A I - 3
Three views of G-37 without payload container.
Grushin Sh-Tandem, MAI-3

Purpose: To devise an improved
configuration for a tactical attack aircraft.
Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute,
designer Pyotr Grushin.
Born in 1906, Grushin worked on various aircraft at MAI, as well as a remarkable steam
engine tested in a U-2 (Po-2). In 1935 he began
scheming a tandem-wing aircraft, thinking
this could form the basis of an attack aircraft
with a rear gun turret. The single example of
the Sh-Tandem (Shturmovik-Tandem) was
constructed in the Institute's production
training school. It was exhaustively tested by
P M Stefanovskii from 5th December 1937.
Once the dangerously inadequate directional
(yaw) stability had been corrected, by adding
fins and rudders above the tailplcine, the aircraft flew well. Eventually it was judged to be
unreliable and not really needed, but a derivative with armour, an M-82 engine and a cannon in the turret might have proved very
useful.
Left: Two views of Sh-Tandem as originally built.

Opposite page: Sh-Tandem after modification
62
G R U S H I N S h - T A N D E M , MAI-3
Sh-Tandem
(upper side view as
originally built).
The key feature of this aircraft was that it

had a main wing and a rear wing with 45 per
cent as much area, both having R-l 1 aerofoil
profile. After experimenting with elevens the
control surfaces on the rear wing were linked
to move in unison as elevators, all lateral control being by the ailerons on the main wing.
Fins and rudders were fitted at 50 per cent of
the semi-span on the rear wing, initially on
the underside only in order to leave a clear
250 arc of fire for the electrically driven turret
with a ShKAS. Four more ShKAS were to be
fixed firing ahead from the main wing, but
these cannot be seen in photographs. An internal bay housed a 200kg (441 Ib) bombload.
The engine was an M-87 (derived from the
Dimensions
Span (main wing)
(rear wing)
Length
Wing area (total)
11.0m
7.0m
8.5m
30.4m 2
36 ft 114 in
23ft
27 ft M in
327 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded given variously as
and, more likely, as
not known
2,560kg
3,088 kg
5,644 Ib
6,808 Ib
Performance
at 4,200m (13,780 ft)
406 km/h
488 km/h
252 mph
303 mph
Gnome-Rhone K14) radial rated at 930hp.

The tailwheel was fixed but the neat main
units had single legs and retracted into the
wing. The airframe was constructed mainly
of wood, with skins of delta bakelite-impregnated veneer. Other features included a
three-blade variable-pitch propeller, Hucks
starter dogs on the propeller shaft, cooling
gills behind the engine cowling, a ventral

ducted oil cooler (repeatedly modified) and
aft-sliding pilot's canopy.
Despite its extraordinary appearance this
aircraft was clearly basically successful.
Whether a developed version could have
done better than the Ilyushin Shturmovik is
problematical.
No other data.
63
G U D K O V Gu-1
Gudkov Gu-1
Purpose: To create a more manoeuvrable
fighter.
Design Bureau: Brigade led by Mikhail
Ivanovich Gudkov, Moscow.
Gudkov was one of the three partners who

created the LaGG design bureau, later led by
Lavochkin only. In early 1940 Gudkov became convinced that the Bell P-39 Airacobra,
with the engine behind the cockpit, had a superior configuration. It gave the pilot a better
view, and by placing the heavy engine in the
centre of the aircraft greatly reduced the long-
itudinal moment of inertia, and thus should

improve manoeuvrability. As well as working
on supposed improved derivatives of the
LaGG, Gudkov managed to obtain funding for
a mid-engined fighter in early 1942, as well as
a contract with the A A Mikulin bureau for the
supply of an engine. The resulting Gu-1, also
called the Gu-37, was completed in the early
summer of 1943. After prolonged taxi trials
test pilot A I Nikashin said 'It seems glued to
the ground'. On 12th June 1943 Nikashin attempted the first flight. The Gu-1 reached
about 200m (650ft) but then appeared to
sideslip into the ground, Nikashin being
killed. Gudkov's brigade was disbanded.
The configuration followed the Airacobra
exactly, with the major difference that the
Gu-1 was constructed largely of wood, with
bakelite-ply skin. Metal parts included the
fuselage back to the firewall between the
cockpit and engine (aligned with the front
spar), which was based on a steel-tube truss
with skin of removable Dl panels, Dl wing
spars and Dl control surfaces. The wing was
of 1V-10 Type V-2 aerofoil profile, and was fitted with automatic leading-edge slats and hydraulically driven split flaps. The engine was
an AM-37 rated at l,380hp (the designer's
notes on the preliminary drawing show that
he wanted an AM-41). Carburettor inlets were
in the wing roots, and long inlets further outboard served the radiators inside the wing
ahead of the inwards-retracting main landing
gears. The drive was taken through a steel
tube of 120mm (4%in) diameter to the reduction gear in the nose. The long nose gear retracted back into a bay in the lower part of the
nose. Armament comprised a massive
Taubin 37mm cannon firing through the propeller hub, fed by an 81 -round magazine (surprisingly large for this calibre) and six ShKAS
machine guns in the fuselage and wing roots.
Few documents on the Gu-1 have been
found. One is led to conclude that either the
wing or vertical tail was too small, or possibly
both.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
10.0m
10.68m
20.0 nf
32 ft 9% in
35 ft 4% in
215ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
3,742kg
4,610kg
8,250 Ib
10,163 Ib
Performance
Landing speed (estimate)
195 km/h
121 mph
OKB drawing of Gu-1

No other data.
64
I L Y U S H I NIL-20
Ilyushin IL-20
Purpose: To design an improved
Shturmovik attack aircraft.
Design Bureau: OKB of Sergei Ilyushin,
Moscow.
In the Great Patriotic War Ilyushin became famous, even outside the Soviet Union, mainly
because of his IL-2 Shturmovik (assaulter).
No fewer than 36,163 were delivered, the
greatest production run of any single type of
aircraft. One reason why so many were needed was that attrition was severe, despite their
heavy armour. With the IL-10M Ilyushin fractionally improved flight performance, and by
1945 the availability of more powerful engines opened the way to a further increase in
gross weight. In turn this made it possible to
rethink the armament, in particular adding a
more effective rear defence. The single IL-20
- dubbed Gorboon, hunchback - began flight
testing in 1948, but by this time piston-engined aircraft for front-line use were becoming outdated. Ilyushin dropped the IL-20 and
began work on the IL-40 twin-jet Shturmovik,
as well as jet bombers and other types.
The IL-20 was a direct extrapolation of the
IL-10 and related types, with similar all-metal
stressed-skin construction. A basic shortcoming of the wartime Shturmoviks had been
that, in most low-level attacks with bombs,
the target disappeared under the nose before
the bombs could be released. Ilyushin had
spent much time trying to devise ways of giving the pilot a better forward view. In 1942 he
had tried putting the pilot in the nose, with a
shaft drive from an engine behind the cockpit, but dropped this idea. Various laboratories also failed to find good answers, one
being the PSh periscopic sight. In 1946 he
tried the even more unusual scheme of
putting the pilot directly above the engine.
The latter was an AM-47F (also called MF-47)
liquid-cooled V-12, the last of Mikulin's big
piston engines, rated at 3,100hp, driving a
3.2m (10ft 6in) four-blade propeller. Despite
being protected below by armour and with
the cockpit above, the engine was said to be
readily accessible and removable. The pilot
had a cockpit with armour 6 to 9mm thick,
with a field of view directly ahead up to 37
downwards, so that in a shallow dive he had
a perfect view of the target. Behind the cockpit was a large protected tank, and behind
that a radio operator in a powered turret with
an NR-23 cannon. The main landing gears retracted aft in the usual manner, the wheels rotating 90 to lie flat in the wings. Immediately
outboard of these were four NS-23 cannon
firing ahead. In one scheme; illustrated on
this page, two further NS-23 were fixed
obliquely in the rear fuselage firing ahead and
Top: IL-20.
Above: IL-20 armament.
Right: IL-20 pilot view.
65
I L Y U S H I N I L - 2 0 / K A L I N I N K-7
downwards. A bomb load of up to 1,190kg
(2,623.5 Ib) could be carried in wing cells, and
wing racks were provided for eight RS-82 or
four RS-132 rockets. There was also to have
been an anti-submarine version, never built.
Though clearly a formidable aircraft, the IL-20
actually had a flight performance in almost all
respects inferior to that of the wartime IL-10.
Ilyushin was certainly right to abandon it, and
in fact the basic attack role was later assumed
by the simple MiG-15 single-seat fast jet.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
17.0m
12.59m
44.0m2
55 ft 9 in
41 ft 3% in
474 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded normal
Maximum
7,535 kg
800+80 kg
9,500kg
9,820 kg
16,612 Ib
1,764+176 Ib
20,944 Ib
21,6491b
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level
450 km/h
at 2,800m (9, 186 ft)
515km/h
8min
to 5,000 m
12.5min
Service ceiling
7,750m
Range (normal gross weight) 1 , 1 80 km
(maximum weight)
1,680km
Take-off run
500m
Landing speed
150 km/h
280 mph
320 mph
9,843 ft
16,404ft
25,430ft
733 miles
1,044 miles
1,640ft
93 mph
Three views of IL-20.
Kalinin K-7
Purpose: To create a super-heavy bomber.
Design Bureau: OKB of K A Kalinin,
Kharkov.
From 1925 Kalinin made himself famous with
a series of single-engined aircraft characterised by having a quasi-elliptical monoplane wing. In 1930 he sketched a gigantic
transport aircraft, the K-7, with a tail carried
on two booms and with four 1,000hp engines
mounted on the wing, which was deep
enough to house 60 passengers or 20 tonnes
of cargo. No engine of this power was readily
available, so in 1931 he redesigned the aircraft to have seven engines of (he hoped)
830hp. GUAP (the Ministry of Aviation Industry) gave permission for the aircraft to be built,
but with the role changed to a heavy bomber.
This meant a further total redesign, one
66
change being to move the centreline engine

to the trailing edge. This near-incredible machine was completed in summer 1933.
Ground running of the engines began on 29th
June, and it was soon obvious from serious
visible oscillation of the tail that the booms
were resonating with particular engine
speeds. The only evident solution was to reinforce the booms by adding steel angle girders, and brace the tail with struts. Flight
testing by a crew led by pilot M A Snegiryov
began on l l t h August 1933, causing intense
public interest over Kharkov. On Flight 9, on
21st November, during speed runs at low altitude, resonance suddenly struck and the right
tail boom fractured. The aircraft dived into the
ground and burned, killing the pilot, 13 crew
and a passenger; five crew survived. Kalinin
was sent to a new factory at Voronezh. Here
a plan was organised by P I Baranov to build

two improved K-7s with stressed-skin booms
of rectangular section, but this scheme was
abandoned in 1935, the K-7 no longer being
thought a modern design.
The basis of this huge bomber was the
enormous wing, of typical Kalinin plan form.
It had CAHI (TsAGI) R-II profile, with a thickness/chord ratio of 19 per cent, rising to 22 per
cent on the centreline, where root chord was
10.6m (34ft 9%in) and depth no less than
2.33m (7ft 7%in). The two main and two subsidiary spars were welded from KhMA Chromansil high-tensile steel, similar lattice girder
construction being used for the ribs. The wing
was constructed as a rectangular centre section, with Dl skin, and elliptical outer sections
covered mainly in fabric. A small nacelle of
Dl stressed-skin construction projected from
K A L I N I N K-7
Development of the K-7:

a. project, 1930
b. project, 1931
c. as built
d. after modification
K-7 over Kharkov.
A view of the modified aircraft.
67
K A L I N I N K-7
K-7 final form
the leading edge. On the leading edge were

six 750hp M-34F water-cooled V-12 engines,
each with a radiator underneath, and driving
a two-blade fixed-pitch propeller; a seventh
engine was on the trailing edge. Walkways
along the wing led to each engine, and on the
ground mechanics could open sections of
leading edge to work on the engines without
needing ladders. Metal tanks in the wings
housed 9,130 litres (2,008 Imperial gallons,
2,412 US gallons) of fuel. Just outboard of the
innermost engines were the booms holding
the tail, 11 .Om (36ft P/in) apart, each having a
triangular cross-section with a flat top. The elliptical horizontal tail carried twin fins and
rudders 7.0m (22ft 11 Jfin) apart. All flight controls were driven by large servo surfaces carried downstream on twin arms. Under the
wing, in line with the booms, were extraordinary landing gears. Each comprised an inclined front strut housing a staircase and a
vertical rear strut with an internal ladder. At
the bottom these struts were joined to a huge
gondola. Each gondola contained three large
wheels, one in front and two behind, holding
the aircraft horizontal on the ground. In front
of and behind the front wheels were bomb
bays with twin doors. Maximum bomb load
was no less than 19 tonnes (41,8871b). Defensive armament comprised a 20mm cannon in a cockpit in the nose, two more in the
ends of the tail booms and twin DA machine
guns aimed by gunners in the front and rear
of each gondola. Total crew numbered 11, all
linked by an intercom system.
Though a fantastic and deeply impressive
aircraft, the K-7 was flawed by its designer's
inability to solve the lethal problem of harmonic vibration. Even without this, it would
probably have been a vulnerable aircraft in
any war in which it might have taken part.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
53.0m
28.184m
454m 2
173 ft W. in
92 ft 554 in
4,887ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
24,400kg
6,500+ 600 kg
38,000 kg
46,500 kg
53,792 Ib
14,330+1,32315
83,774 Ib
102,513 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed (design)
(achieved)
Long-range speed
Service ceiling
Normal range
225 km/h
204.5 km/h
180 km/h
3,630m
3,030 km
140 mph
127 mph
112 mph
11,910ft
1,883 miles
Nose of the modified aircraft.
68
K A L I N I N K-12
Kalinin K-12
Purpose: To create a multirole aircraft with
tailless configuration.
Design Bureau: OKB of K A Kalinin,
Voronezh.
In April 1933 Kalinin submitted to the NIl-WS
three preliminary designs for a VS-2 (Voiskovoi
Samolyot, troop aircraft) for reconnaissance,
bombing, transport, ambulance and other
missions. One was conventional, the second
had twin tail booms, and the third was tailless. Kalinin preferred the third option, because of supposed lower weight and drag,
better manoeuvrability and ease of Fitting a
tail turret for defence. He began with the
NACA R-106R aerofoil, with slats, park-bench
ailerons, Scheibe wingtip rudders and a vestigial horizontal tail. Tunnel testing of models
led to an improved design with a trapezoidal
wing of CAHI (TsAGI) R-II profile, with trailingedge servo-operated elevators and ailerons
of Junkers 'double wing' type (as also used by
Grokhovskii), the small horizontal tail being
eliminated. To test the configuration a halfscale glider (span 10.45m, length 5.2m) was
constructed in 1934 and flown over 100 times
by V O Borisov. After many problems and arguments, the full-scale aircraft was completed at GAZ (State Aviation Factory) No 18 at
Voronezh as the K-12, and flown by Borisov
in July 1936. Factory testing was completed
in 46 flights. The K-12 was then ferried to
Moscow where its Nil testing was assigned

to P M Stefanovskii from October 1936. He
found severe control problems, and eventually N N Bazhanov, head of the NIl-WS, refused to accept the K-12 for official trials.
From this time onwards Kalinin was under a
cloud. The Director of GAZ No 18 joined with
Tupolev, Vakhmistrov (see later) and others
to impede progress and get the K-12 abandoned. Kalinin moved into Grokhovskii's
summer dacha, the K-12 languishing at
Grokhovskii's KB-29. Contrary to the political
tide, Voroshilov ordered the K-12 to fly in the
1937 Air Day parade over Moscow Tushino,
and Bazhanov had it painted in a fantastic
red/yellow feathered scheme as the Zhar
K-12 half-scale glider
K-12 original configuration
69
KALININ
K-12
Ptitsa (firebird or phoenix). It made a great

impression, and on 12th December 1937 the
Assistant Head of the WS, YaVSmushkevich, signed an order for renewed NIl-WS
testing to start on 1st March 1938, followed by
series production of modified aircraft at GAZ
No 207. Work began, but in spring 1938 Kalinin's enemies managed to get him arrested
and shot on charges of spying and conspiracy. As he had become an 'enemy of the people' the contract was cancelled, the K-12 was
scrapped and the ten aircraft on the assembly
line were never completed.
The structure of the K-12 was almost entirely based on welded KhMA (Chromansil
steel) tubing. The wing comprised left and
right panels bolted to the roots, each having
one main spar running straight from tip to tip.
The fuselage was in three bolted sections, the
front section being mainly skinned in Dl, all
the rest of the skin being fabric. The trailingedge and wingtip controls were all fabricskinned Dl. The main landing gears were
to have been retractable, but the intended
M-25 engines and variable-pitch propellers
were not available in time, so weight was
saved by making the landing gears fixed. The
inadequate engines which had to be fitted
were 480hp M-22 (Bristol Jupiter licence), in
cowlings with cooling gills, and driving 2.8m
K 12
70
(9ft 2%\n) two-blade metal propellers with

pitch adjustable on the ground. Crew comprised a pilot in an enclosed cockpit, a navigator who also served as bomb aimer in a
nose turret with one 7.62mm ShKAS (he was
provided with a rudimentary flight-control
lever in case the pilot was incapacitated) and
a radio operator in a similar tail turret.
Bombload of up to 500kg (l,1021b) was carried on a KD-2 vertical rack behind the main
spar and pilot's cockpit. Other equipment included a VSK-2 radio and AFA-12 camera.
At the end of its life, in early 1938, the K-12
was refitted with 700hp M-25 (Wright Cyclone) engines, driving Hamilton Standard
type variable-pitch propellers, but it was
never tested in this form. Other modifications
included fitting an electrically retractable
main landing gear and modified armament. It
had also been Kalinin's intention to replace
the wingtip fin/rudder surfaces by rudders
above the wings behind the engines, but
these were never fitted.
Accounts of this strange tailless aircraft
tend either to be strongly positive or strongly
negative. There is no doubt Kalinin was the
victim of political intrigue, but at the same
time the K-12 does not appear to have been a
stable or controllable aircraft.
Dimensions (As flown with

Span
Length
Wing area
M-22 engines)
20.95m
10.32m
72.75m2
68 ft 8M in
33 ft WA in
783 ft!
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
3,070kg
500kg
4,200kg
9,259 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Service ceiling
Range
Take-off run
Landing run
219km/h
7,170m
700km
700m
300m
136 mph
23,524ft
435 miles
2,297 ft
984ft
6,768 Ib
1,102 Ib
KALININ
K-12
Top: K-12 inboard profile.

Above and right: Two views of Zhar Ptitsa.
71
KAMOV K A - 2 2
Kamov Ka-22
Purpose: To create a Vintokryl (screw wing)
compound helicopter.
Design Bureau: OKB of Nikolai Kamov,
Moscow.
In 1951 various attempts were being made to
increase the effective range of helicopters,
notably by towing them in the outward direction behind an Li-2, with the lifting rotor autorotating. The idea occurred to Kamov
designer Vladimir Barshevsky that it would be
possible to dispense with the tug aircraft if a
helicopter could be provided with wings and
an aeroplane propulsive system. After obtaining permission from Kamov, his deputy
V V Nikitin took a proposal to the Kremlin and
in a matter of days the OKB had a Stalin directive to get started. The engines were to be
TV-2 (later TV-2VK) turboshafts supplied by
N D Kuznetsov, and many organizations were
involved in research for this challenging pro-
Ka-22 (bottom view, record configuration).
72
ject, starting with model tests in the T-l 01 tunnel at CAHI. The final go-ahead was issued on
11 th June 1954. An order for three Ka-22s was
placed on the factory at Ukhtomskaya, which
had been derelict since Kamov was evacuated from there in October 1941. Concentration
on the small Ka-15 (the OKB's first production
helicopter) and other problems so delayed
the programme that on 28th March 1956 prototypes 2 and 3 were cancelled. In June 1958
the LD-24 rotor blades began testing on an
Mi-4. The Ka-22 itself first lifted from the
ground on 17th June 1959, and made its first
untethered flight on 15th August 1959, the test
crew being led by pilot D K Yefremov.
Serious control difficulties were encountered, and the Kamov team were joined by
LII pilots VVVinitskii and YuAGarnayev.
Though still full of problems the Vintokryl was
demonstrated on llth October 1959 to MAP
Minister PVDement'yev and WS C-in-C
KAVershinin. Gradually difficulties were

solved and in July 1960 an order was received
to manufacture three Ka-22s at GAZ No 84 at
Tashkent, with D-25VK engines. On 23rd May
1961 a speed of 230km/h was held for 37 minutes. On 9th July 1961 the Ka-22 caused a sensation at the Aviation Day at Tushino. On 7th
October 1961, with spats over the wheels and
a fairing behind the cockpit, a class speed
record was set at 356.3km/h (221.4mph),
followed on 12th October by 336.76km/h
(209.3mph) round a 100km circuit. The spats
and fairing were then removed and on
24th November 1961 a payload of 16,485kg
(36,343 Ib) was lifted to 2,557m (8,389ft).
Preparations were then made to ferry AM 0I01 and the third machine AM 0I-03 from
Tashkent to Moscow for Nil acceptance testing. Both departed on 28th August 1962.
While making an intermediate stop at
Dzhusaly 0I-01 rolled to the left and crashed
inverted, killing Yefremov and his crew of six.
The cause was diagnosed as 'disconnection
of No 24 cable joint of the linkage with the
starboard lift rotor collective-pitch control
unit'. At Tashkent and in Turkestan the cable
joints and cyclic-pitch booster brackets were
inspected on 0I-02 and 0I-03 and found to be
incorrectly assembled. Changing the direction of rotation of one lifting rotor did little at
lower speeds and caused problems at higher
speeds - 'When', said lead engineer V S Dordan, 'Shockwaves off the blades sounded like
a large machine gun'. To improve stability
and controllability the complex AP-116 differential autopilot was installed, continuously
sensing attitude and angular accelerations,
feeding the KAU-60A combined flight-control
unit. On 12th August 1964 the heavily instrumented 0I-03 took off on one of a series of
tests conducted with WS (air force) and GVF
(civil) crews. Take-off was in aeroplane
mode, and 15 minutes later at 310km/h
(193mph) the aircraft suddenly turned to the
right, 'not arrested by full rudder and
aileron.. .the aircraft turned almost 180 when
Garnayev intervened, considering the problem was differential pitch of the propellers...turn rate slowed, but the aircraft
pitched into a steep dive...the engineer jettisoned the flight-deck hatches, and one struck
the starboard lift rotor causing asymmetric
forces which resulted in separation of the entire starboard nacelle. Garnayev ordered the
crew to abandon the aircraft'. Three survived,
but Col S G Brovtsev, who was flying, and
technician A F Rogov, were killed. By this
time the Mi-6 heavy helicopter was in wide
service, and the Ka-22 was ultimately abandoned. Several years later the two surviving
machines, 0I-02 and 0I-04, were scrapped.
KAMOV KA-22
An article about the Ka-22 in Kryl'ya Rodiny
(Wings of the Motherland) for November
1992 does not mention the fact that two
crashed, which is not widely known even in
the former Soviet Union.
The Ka-22 was basically an aeroplane with
its engines on the wingtips, with geared drives to both propellers and lifting rotors. The
airframe was all light alloy stressed-skin, the
high wing having powered ailerons and plain
flaps. The fuselage had a glazed nose, threeseat cockpit above the nose and a main cargo
area 17.9 x 3.1 x 2.8m (58' 9" x 10' 2" x 9' 2") for
80 seats or 16.5 tonnes of cargo. The entire
nose could swing open to starboard for loading bulky items or a vehicle. The original prototype was powered by 5,900-shp TV-2VK
engines, but these were later replaced by the
5,500-shp D-25VK. These had free turbines
geared via a clutch to the main-rotor and via
a front drive to the four-blade propeller and a
fan blowing air through the oil cooler from a
circular inlet above the nacelle. The two freeturbine outputs were interconnected by a 12part high-speed shaft 'about 20m long'. The
main rotors were larger derivatives of those of
the Mi-4. In helicopter mode the propeller
drive was declutched and the flaps were fully
lowered. Flight control was by differential
cyclic and collective pitch. In aeroplane
mode the lifting rotors were free to windmill
and the aircraft was controlled by the ailerons
and tail surfaces. The twin-wheel landing
gears were fixed.
Apart from prolonged dissatisfaction with
the engines, the problems with the Ka-22
were mechanical complexity, severe losses
in the gearboxes and drives and the fact that
each lifting rotor blew straight down on top of
the wing. Similar charges could be levelled
against today's V-22 Osprey.
Dimensions
Distance between lifting-rotor centres
23.53m
Wing area
105m 2
Diameter of lifting rotors,
originally 22.8 m, later
22.5m
Lifting-rotor area (total)
795.2 m2
Length
27.0 m
Weights
Empty (initially)
later
Loaded (VTO)
(STO)
Performance
Maximum speed
Dynamic ceiling (VTO)
(STO)
Potential maximum range
(calculated by Barshevsky)
STO run
Landing over 25m
Above: Ka-22 in speed-record configuration.
Below: Two views of Ka-22.
77 ft 2% in
1,130ft2
73 ft 9% in
8,560ft2
88 ft 7 in
25 tonnes
28,200 kg
35,500 kg
42,500kg
62,169 Ib
78,263 Ib
93,695 Ib
375 km/h
5,500 m
4,250 m
233 mph
18,050ft
13,944ft
5,500 km
300 m
130m
3,418 miles
984ft
426.5ft
73
K H A R K O V KhAI A V I A V N I T O 3, S E R G E I KIROV
Kharkov KhAI Aviaviiito 3, Sergei Kirov

Purpose: To create a light transport with
minimum operating cost.
Design Bureau: Kharkov Aviation Institute,
Aviavnito brigade led by Aleksandr
Alekseyevich Lazarev.
In the 1930s several Soviet designers produced aircraft intended to demonstrate how
much could be transported on the l00hp of
an M-l 1 engine. These aircraft were as a class
called Planerlyet (motor glider). This example had an unconventional configuration. It
first flew on 14th September 1936, dual-controlled by V A Borodin and E I Schwartz.
Eventually a control linkage was found which
by 27th September enabled good turns to be
made. Shavrov's account ends with The
Aviavnito-3 after modification.
Aviavnito-3 (right side view after modification).
74
overall conclusion of the tests at Nil GVF (civil

aviation test institute) was extremely positive', but nothing came of this one-off.
The Aviavnito-3 (often incorrectly called
KhAI-3) was essentially an all-wing aircraft.
The wing comprised a rectangular centre section, with the uncowled engine mounted on
steel tubes on the front, to which were bolted
two outer panels tapered on the leading edge.
Aerofoil was V-106, with a t/c ratio of 14 per
cent over the centre section, which had a
chord of 5.0m (16ft Sin), tapering to 7 per cent
at the tips, which incorporated 8 washout.
Structurally, the centre section was KhMA
steel tube covered by Dl Dural skin, while the
outer panels were all wood, with truss ribs
supporting closely spaced stringers. Along
each outer edge of the centre section was a
row of four seats, each front seat being for a
pilot (the two pilots had to agree in advance
which one should do the flying), covered by a
row of sliding canopies. The flight controls
comprised large unbalanced cable-operated
surfaces divided into inner and outer sections
to serve as ailerons and elevators. In addition,
spoilers were recessed into the upper surface
of each wingtip, driven by the pedals, to enable co-ordinated turns to be made. A 2m2
(21.5ft2) fin and rudder were added, but it was
hoped eventually to do without this. The simple rubber-sprung main landing gears had
800 x 150mm tyres with brakes, and the large
tailwheel could castor 25. Between the
rows of seats were four Dl tanks giving an

8-hour endurance. During development two
additional seats were inserted on each side,
pushing the pilots into noses projecting ahead
of the wing. To balance these the vertical tail
was significantly enlarged.
It is clear that this machine did everything
expected of it, and that it was eventually developed to fly safely and controllably. However, even though they were much faster than
anything else over vast areas devoid of surface transport, nothing came of the rash of
Planerlyet designs.
Dimensions (final form)

Span
Length
Wing area
22.4m
6.8m
78.6 m!
73 ft 6 in
22 ft 334 in
846 ff
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
1,440kg
200kg
2,200kg
3,1751b
440 Ib
4,850 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Cruising speed
Time to climb to 1 ,000 m
Service ceiling approx
Range
Take-off run
Landing speed
135km/h
115km/h
25min
2,000m
850km
210m
60km/h
84 mph
71.5 mph
(3,281 ft)
6,561 ft
528 miles
689ft
37 mph
K H A R K O V KhAl-4
Kharkov KhAI-4
Purpose: To test a tailless light aircraft.
Design Bureau: Kharkov Aviation Institute,
joint design by P G Bening, A A Lazarev and
AAKrol'.
Also known as the Iskra (spark) and as the
Osoaviakhimovets Ukrainy for the local
Osoaviakhim branch, the KhAI-4 was completed in summer 1934, and first tested in October of that year by B N Kudrin. He found the
elevens almost useless, but discovered that at
ISOkm/h (112mph) the KhAI-4 could just become airborne provided the airfield was
bumpy! Once in the air he found that the
downthrust of the propeller (because of its
sloping thrust axis) resulted in a poor rate of
climb, while the small moment arm of the
elevens made longitudinal control extremely
poor. To cap it all, the wingtip surfaces, away
from the slipstream, were ineffective, making
the aircraft directionally unstable. Kudrin was
able to creep round the circuit by holding the
control column neutral, and to land at high
speed with a small angle of attack, not trying
to raise the nose. He did fly the KhAI-4 twice
more, but that was enough.
The KhAI-4 tested several ideas and even
actual components which were later built
into the larger Aviavnito-3. Its objective was to
explore handing of a tailless machine, and
also one with a castoring nosewheel (the first
such landing gear in the Soviet Union). Aerodynamically it comprised a short central nacelle on a wing tapered on the leading edge,
fitted with various controls. Initially the wing
had six trailing-edge surfaces, all operated
differentially by rotation of the pilot's handwheel. A push/pull movement operated the
two innermost surfaces, which were thus
elevens. Movement of the pedals operated
rudders on the wingtip fins. Later swept-back
wings with distinct ailerons and elevators
were tested, and the drawing even shows the
addition of small fixed foreplanes. Despite the
difference in size and weight the engine was
the same type of l00hp M-ll as used for the
Aviavnito-3, but driving a pusher propeller.
The short landing gears had balloon tyres, the
main shock struts having a hydraulic connecting pipe so that, if one wheel went over a
bump, the other leg would extend to hold the
wings level and avoid scraping the tip. The
construction was wood, but with overall fabric covering. The nacelle had two seats in
tandem.
The Kharkov designers deliberately embarked on this tricky and untried layout, but
failed to make it work. Dropping the idea was
probably largely due to the pilot's wish to
survive.
Two views of KhAI-4 (without foreplane).
Dimensions
Span
(new wing)
Length
(new wing)
Wing area
(new wing)
12.0m
10.9m
4.2m
4.75m
21.25nf
unchanged
39 ft 4H in
35 ft m in
13 ft 9% in
15 ft 7 in
229ft 2
Weights
Empty
(new wing)
Fuel/oil
Loaded
(new wing)
550 kg
600kg
120kg
850kg
unchanged
1,213 Ib
l,3231b
265 Ib
l,8741b
Performance
Max speed attempted
Calculated service ceiling
Design range
Landing speed
ISOkm/h
3,250m
600km
l00km/h
112 mph
10,663ft
373 miles
62 mph
75
K H A R K O V KhAI-4 / KhAI-2
KhAI-4: (a) with swept-back wing; (b) with a fixed foreplane.
Kharkov KhAI-2
Purpose: To build a turbojet aircraft.
Design Bureau: Arkhip M Lyul'ka and
A P Yeremenko, working at Kharkov
Aviation Institute.
This drawing was discovered in 1993. It
shows a small aircraft proposed by Yeremenko to test the first turbojet designed by
Lyul'ka, who later became one of the Soviet
Union's greatest jet engineers. There are two
puzzles: the designation KhAI-2 is conspicuously absent from the official history of the
KhAI published in 1990; and this designation
was in any case used for the Institute's modification of the Po-2 (likewise not mentioned
in the book, perhaps because it was not an
original Kharkov design). The drawing shows
the centrifugal turbojet (which Lyul'ka had
not made but calculated to give 525kg
[l,1571b] thrust) fed by a ventral inlet, with
the nozzle under the rear fuselage. It also suggests that the cockpit could be jettisoned in
emergency. Co-author Gunston believes the
date must have been rather later than 1936,
but this can still claim to have been the
world's first design for a jet aircraft.
76
Dimensions
Span
Length
KhAI-2
6.95m
7.2m
22 ft 9% in
23 ft 7Vm
K O S T I K O V 302,
Ko-3
Kostikov 302, Ko-3

Purpose: Simple jet (rocket + ramjet)
fighter.
Design Bureau: RNII (reaction-engine
scientific research institute) and OKB No 55.
By 1940 the idea of the PVRD (ramjet) was familiar in the Soviet Union, mainly to boost the
speed of piston-engined fighters. In 1940 Professor Mikhail Tikhonravov, on the RNII staff,
had the better idea of making a simpler and
lighter fighter with a ZhRD (liquid-propellant
rocket) in the tail and PVRDs under the wings.
This could put together various things already
developed in the Soviet Union to create what
might have been a cheap and quickly produced fighter which, apart from short range
and endurance, would have had outstanding
performance. Unfortunately, perhaps because it appeared unconventional, this project suffered from endless argument and
foot-dragging, finally falling victim to a decision to abandon all such aircraft. According to
Shavrov, 'The proposal did not attract any objections from A G Kostikov, Director of the
RNII. It was continued as a preliminary project, and approved by the Technical Council
of the RNII in spring 1941. It was later examined by a commission of specialists at the
WA' (air force academy). This commission,
comprising S A Christianovich, A V Chesalov,
S N Shishkin, V I Polikovskii and others, proclaimed that This project does not bring out
anything new'. Work proceeded at a snail's
pace, and Kostikov then took the proposal to
the NKAP (state commissariat for aviation industry), where Tikhonravov defended it on
17-18th July 1942. In November 1942 Kostikov
showed the proposal to K E Voroshilov, and
eventually Stalin himself gave authority for
work to resume, appointing Kostikov chief
designer. From this time onwards many documents called the project 'Ko-3'. Funding was
Top: 302 with PVRD engines.

Below: Two views of 302.
provided for two prototypes, and to build

these the RNII set up OKB-55, appointing as
director M R Bisnovat (see earlier) and
A A Andreyev as his deputy. Tikhonravov did
the aerodynamic calculations, while stressing was in the hands of V D Yarovitskii. By
spring 1943 two 302 aircraft were almost
completed. Testing in the T-104 tunnel at
CAHI (TsAGI) began at this time. In 1943 the
original proposed ramjets were changed to a
new design by Vladimir Stepanovich Zuyev.
These were initially tested in a half-scale
form, but full-scale testing was never carried
out. After much argument it was decided to
forget the ramjets and complete the aircraft
as the 302 P (Perekhvatchik, interceptor) with
the rocket only. The PVRD attachments under
the wings were faired over, and the wing span
reduced. This was flight-tested as a glider at
the LII from August 1943, towed to altitude by
a North American B-25 and Tu-2. The assigned pilot was initially S N Anokhin, followed by M L Gallai and B N Kudrin, with
V N Yelagin as test engineer. The 302P was
found to be 'exceptionally good, stable and
pleasant to fly', and in March 1944 the second
302P was being tested in the T-104 tunnel at
CAHI. In the same month the whole programme was cancelled. A recent Russian
magazine article about the 302 omits any
mention of Tikhonravov.
The 302 was made mainly of wood, with a
monocoque fuselage and smooth skin of
Delta and Shpon veneers bonded by Bakelitetype plastics. The wings had 15-per-cent
RAF.34 profile at the root, tapering to 8-percent NACA-230 near the pointed tip. In contrast, the control surfaces were of Dl alloy
with fabric covering, the starboard aileron,
rudder and both elevators having trim tabs.
The rocket engine was a Dushkin/Shtokolov
D-1A with a main chamber rated at 1,100kg
(2,4251b) at sea level and a cruise chamber
rated at 450kg (992 Ib). Under the wings were
to have been installed the ramjets, but information on these Zuyev units is lacking. Their
nacelles were to have been oval, with the
major axis horizontal, faired neatly into the
wing. The all-rocket 302P had tanks for
1,230kg (2,712 Ib) of RFNA (concentrated nitric acid) and 505kg (1,113 Ib) of kerosene.
The cockpit, which was to have been pressurized, had a canopy hinged to the right and
a bulletproof windscreen and frontal armour.
The main and tailwheel landing gears were to
have been retracted hydraulically, and the
same system would have operated the split
flaps. No documents have been found describing how the environmental and hydraulic systems would have been energised.
Two 20mm ShVAK cannon were to have
been mounted in the nose and two more in
the bottom of the forward fuselage, each with
100 rounds. In addition, there was to have
been provision for underwing racks for RS-82
or RS-132 rockets or two FAB-125 bombs.
77
K O S T I K O V 302, Ko-3 / K O R O L Y O V R P - 3 1 8 - 1
Dimensions (302)
Span (302)
length (excluding guns)
wing area (302)
With the benefit of hindsight this appears to

have been a considerable case of 'might have
been'. Kostikov was a political animal who
saw in Tikhonravov's proposal a means to
gain advancement and power. Instead, in
1944 a commission headed by A S Yakovlev
found him responsible for the failure of the
302 to develop on schedule; he was dismissed from his post and later imprisoned.
302P
78
302P in CAHI (TsAGI) wind tunnel.
11.4m
8.708m
17.8m2
37 ft Min
28 ft &, in
192ft 2
Weights
Empty (302)
1,856kg
Loaded not stated, but about 3,800 kg
4,092 Ib
8,377 Ib
Performance
at altitude
to 9 km
Service ceiling
Range
Take-off in 16 seconds at
800 km/h
900 km/h
2.1 min
2.8 min
18km
100km
200 km/h
497 mph
559 mph
(16,404ft)
(29,528 ft)
59,055ft
62 miles
124 mph
Dimensions (302P)
Span
Length (excluding guns)
Wing area
9.55m
8.708m
14.8m2
31 ft 4 in
28 ft 6% in
159ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,502kg
3,358kg
3,31 lib
7,403 Ib
Performance
The only measured figure for the 302P
was a landing speed of
115 km/h
71. 5 mph
KOROLYOV
Above: 302 with PVRD engines.
302,
Ko-3
Below: 302P inboard profile.
79
KOROLYOV RP-318-1
Korolyov RP-318-1
Purpose: To test a liquid-propellant rocket
engine in flight.
Design Bureau: RNII, rocket-engine scientific
research institute; head of winged-aircraft
department Sergei Pavlovich Korolyov.
Korolyov was a pioneer of light aircraft and,
especially, high-performance gliders before,
in early 1930s, concentrating on rocketry. In
1934 he schemed the RP-218, a high-altitude
rocket aircraft with a two-seat pressure cabin
and spatted main landing gear. The engines
were eventually to have comprised three RD1, derived from the ORM-65 (see below), and
in a later form the structure was refined and
the landing gear made retractable. The RP218 was never completed, partly because Korolyov was assigned to assist development of
the BICh-11 (see under Cheranovskii). In
1935 he produced his SK-9 two-seat glider,
and suggested that this could be a useful
rocket test-bed. In 1936, in his absence on
other projects, A Ya Shcherbakov and
A V Pallo began converting this glider as the
flight test-bed for the ORM-65. This was fired
20 times on the bench and nine times in Korolyov's RP-212 cruise missile before being installed in the RP-318 and fired on the ground
from 16th December 1937. The ORM-65 was
Three-view of unbuilt
RP-218, with side elevation
of RP-318-1.
80
then replaced by the RDA-I-150 Nol, cleared

to propel a manned aircraft. This engine was
repeatedly tested on the ground, and then
flew (without being fired) in four towed
flights in October 1939. After further tests the
RP-318 was towed off on 28th February 1940
by an R-5 flown by Fikson, with Shcherbakov
and Pallo as passengers in the R-5. The SK-9
was released at 2,800m, and then glided
down to 2,600m where pilot Vladimir
Pavlovich Fedorov fired the rocket. The SK-9
accelerated from 80 to 140km/h on the level
and then climbed to 2,900m, the engine stopping after 110 seconds. Fedorov finally landed
on a designated spot. Shavrov: This flight was
of great significance for Russia's rocket engines'. Much later Korolyov became the architect of the vast Soviet space programme.
The RP-318-1 was based on the SK-9, a
shapely sailplane of mainly wooden construction. The rear seat was replaced by a vertical Dl light-alloy tank for 10kg (22 Ib) of
kerosene, and immediately behind this were
two vertical stainless-steel tanks projecting
up between the wing spars each holding 20kg
(441b)of RFNA (red fuming nitric acid). The
rocket engine and its pressurized gas feed
and complex control system were installed in
the rear fuselage, the thrust chamber being
beneath the slightly modified rudder. The

RDA-I-150 was a refined version of the ORM65, designed jointly by V P Glushko and
L S Dushkin. Design thrust was 70 to 140kg at
sea level, the figure actually achieved being
about 100kg (220.5 Ib). An additional ski was
added under the fuselage.
This modest programme appears to have
had a major influence on the development of
Soviet rocket aircraft.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
17.0m
7.44m
22.0m2
55 ft 914 in
24 ft 5 in
237ft2
Weights
Empty
Propellants
Loaded
570kg
75kg
700kg
l,2571b
1651b
1, 54315
Performance
Restricted by airframe to
165km/h
102.5 mph
KOROLYOV RP-318-1
Unbuilt later RP-218 project with longer span,

new tail and retractable landing gear.
Two views of RP-318-1.
81
K O Z L O V PS
Kozlov PS
Purpose: To make an invisible aeroplane.
Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet air
force academy; designer Professor Sergei
Kozlov.
Professor Kozlov was eager to see to what degree it would be possible to construct a
'transparent' aeroplane, difficult to see (for
example, by enemies on the ground). In 1933
a preliminary experiment was made with a U2 biplane whose rear fuselage and tail were
stripped of fabric and re-covered with a transparent foil called Cellon (unrelated to the
British company of that name). In 1935 the
WA was assigned Yakovlev's second AIR-4,
which already had experimental status. The
airframe was completely stripped of all covering and internal equipment, and reassembled as described below. Though it was
called the Nevidimyi Samolyot, invisible aero-
plane, it received the unexplained official

designation of PS. It first flew on 25th July
1935.
The AIR-4, one of A S Yakovlev's first designs, was a neat parasol monoplane, first
flown in 1930. Powered by a 60hp Walter NZ60 five-cylinder radial, it had two seats in tandem. The structure was almost entirely
wood, with skin of ply and fabric. The pairs of
wing bracing struts were mild-steel sheet
wrapped round to an aerofoil section 64 x
32mm (21/2 x l!4in). Of course, Kozlov could
do nothing to hide these struts, nor the rubber-sprung divided main landing gears, or the
engine, fuel tank and other parts. Virtually the
whole airframe was covered in a French
transparent plastic called Rodoid. This was
cut from sheet, each panel being drilled and
secured by aluminium rivets inserted through
eyelets. As far as possible the opaque parts
were painted silver-white.

The PS was officially judged to have
achieved results which had 'a measure of importance'. Apart from the invisibility effect,
the transparent skin was also held to improve
the field of view of the occupants, and Kozlov
did preliminary studies for a transparent reconnaissance aircraft. On a low-level flypast
the PS was said to be not easily seen except
by chance, though of course observers could
narrow the field of search from judging the
source of the aircraft's sound. After a few
weeks, however, the foil skin was of little use,
partly because of progressive darkening by
solar radiation and partly because of the effect of dust and oil droplets from the engine.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
H.lm
6.94 m
16.5m2
36 ft 5 in
22 ft 9^ in
178ft 2
Weights
Empty (originally 394 kg)
as PS probably about
Loaded originally
450 kg
630 kg
992 Ib
l,3891b
Performance
Maximum speed originally 1 50 km/h
(probably slightly reduced)
No other helpful data for modified aircraft.
Left: PS accompanied by a U-2.

AIR-4, the basis of the PS.
82
93 mph
K O Z L O V El
Kozlov El
While no illustration has been found of the El,

this 1940 drawing recently came to light showing a
fighter project with a more powerful engine
(M-106P) and greater span.
Purpose: To evaluate a fighter with a

variable-incidence wing.
Design Bureau: Zhukovskii WA, Soviet air
force academy; design team led by
Professor S G Kozlov.
Kozlov was perpetually seeking after new
targets, and one that he had considered for
many years was the pivoted wing, able to
change its angle of incidence. Thus, for example, the aircraft could take off or land
with a large angle of attack yet with the fuselage level. Four Russian designers had made
unsuccessful variable-incidence aircraft in
1916-17. Design of the El (Eksperimentalnyi
Istrebitel, experimental fighter) began in
1939. Under Kozlov's direction the wing was
designed by V S Chulkovand the landing gear
by M M Shishmarev. D O Gurayev was assistant chief designer, and S N Kan and IA
Sverdlov handled the stressing. The single El
was constructed at a factory in the Moscow
district, but its completion was seriously de-
layed, mainly by technical difficulties and repeated alteration of the drawings. At last the
El was almost complete in autumn 1941, but
on 16th October the factory was evacuated.
The El and all drawings were destroyed.
The El was said to have been a good-looking single-seat fighter, powered by a 1,650hp
M-107 (VK-107) liquid-cooled engine. The
fuselage was a Duralumin stressed-skin semimonocoque of oval section, with heavy armament around the engine. The wings had
spars with steel T-booms and Duralumin
webs, with glued shpon (Birch veneer) skin.
The wing was fitted with flaps and differential
ailerons, and was mounted on ball-bearing
trunnions on the front spar and driven by an
irreversible Acme-thread jack acting on the
rear spar. To avoid problems it is believed the

main landing gears were attached to the fuselage and retracted into fuselage compartments. No other details survive.
There is no reason to believe that the El
would not have met its designer's objectives,
but equally it had little chance of being accepted for production. The only successful
variable-incidence aircraft was the Vought
F8U (F-8) Crusader.
Dimensions
Span
9.2m
30 ft 2K in
No other data.
83
LaGG-3/2VRD / L A V O C H K I N La-7PVRD A N D La-9RD
LaGG-3/2 VRD
Purpose: To investigate the use of ramjets

to boost fighter performance.
Design Bureau: The OKB of Lavochkin,
Gorbunov and Gudkov (LaGG).
Unknown to the outside world, the Soviet
Union was the pioneer of ramjet propulsion.
Such engines are essentially simple ducts,
with air rammed in at the front inlet, slowed
in an expanding diffuser, mixed with burning
fuel and expelled at high speed through a rear

converging section and nozzle. In 1939
M M Bondaryuk, at NIl-GVF OKB-3 (civil air
fleet research construction bureau No 3) first
ran an experimental subsonic ramjet. In August 1942 a pair of much further developed
versions were attached under the wings of
LaGG-3 fighter No 31213173 and tested in the
air from 5th August. Test pilot Captain
Mishenko made 14 flights. Results were indif-
ferent, but provided a background of data for

later ramjet work, collated by M V Keldysh.
The LaGG-3 was a mass-produced fighter
of all-wood construction, powered by an M105PF engine. The first Bondaryuk ramjets to
fly were designated VRD-1, and were tested
in two forms. The original was a plain steel
duct with a diameter of 140mm (51/2in), length
of 2,150mm (7ft 1/2in) and weight of 16kg
(35.31b). The boosted (forsirovannyi) version
had a diameter of 170mm (6%in) and length
of 1,900mm (6ft Sin), but weighed the same.
Fuel from the three main aircraft tanks was
supplied by a special BNK-10 pump with a
proportioner to supply both ramjets equally.
Results were sufficiently interesting to justify further work, starting with the VRD (or
PVRD) 430 (see page 89). In parallel Merkulov
was developing the DM-4 and similar ramjets,
tested on the I-153 and I-207.
Dimensions
Span
9.81 m
Length
8.82 m
Wing area
17.62m 2
Weight and performance not recorded.
32 ft 2 in
28 ft m in
189.7ft 2
Lavochkin La-7PVRD and La-9RD

Purpose: To investigate the use of pulsejets
to boost fighter performance.
Design Bureau: The OKB of Semyon A
Lavochkin.
La-7PVRD, also called

La-7D-10orLa-7/2D-10
In 1942 Vladimir N Chelomey, working at

TsIAM (Central Institute of Aviation Motors)
began bench-testing the first pulsejet in the
Soviet Union. This was independent of work
by the German Argus company, which because of Soviet secrecy became famed as the
pioneer of such engines. The Soviet unit received two designations, D-10 and RD-13. In
1946 the first two flight-cleared D-10 engines
were hung under the wings of a slightly modified La-7, which was designated La-7PVRD.
In the second half of 1947 a second pair, designated RD-13, were flown under the wings of
an La-9, which misleadingly received the designation La-9RD. Despite the fact that the programme had already been abandoned, eight
further La-9 fighters were fitted with these engines, and all nine made a deafening formation flypast at the Tushino Aviation Day.
Left: La-7/2D-10.
84
L A V O C H K I N La-7PVRD AND La-9RD

The D-10 pulsejet appears to have been
heavier than the German 109-014 unit of similar size, though weight data are lacking. The
duct was mainly aluminium at the front and
steel to the rear of the fuel injectors. Fuel was
drawn from the main aircraft tanks and ignition was electrical. The unit was suspended
from a shallow pylon projecting ahead of the
wing leading edge with two main attachments, with a steadying attachment at the
rear. Apart from the pulsejet instrumentation
and control system a few modifications were
needed to the aircraft, the main one being to
remove a large portion of flap above the
pulsejet jetpipe. No data are available describing how thrust varied with airspeed or
height; Shavrov merely gives the thrust of a
single D-10 as 200kg (44 lib).
Though these pulsejets performed as expected, they significantly added to aircraft
weight and drag, and reduced manoeuvrability, especially rate of roll. In addition, the violent vibration transmitted to the aircraft
'made flying difficult' and was very unpopular
with pilots.
Dimensions (La-7PVRD)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.8m
8.6m
17.59m2
32 ft \% in
28 ft n in
189ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
2,998kg
3,701 kg
6,609 Ib
8,159 Ib
La-9RD, also called La-9D-13

orLa-9/2D-13
Performance
Maximum speed, according to Shavrov the calculated speeds were
800 km/h at 6,000 m and 715 km/h at 8,000 m, whereas the actual
speeds at these heights were 670 km/h (416 mph) and 620 km/h
(385 mph), or marginally lower than without the pulsejets!
Dimensions (La-9RD)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.8m
8.63m
17.72m 2
32ftP/Un
28 ft 3% in
191 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
3,150kg
3,815kg
6,944 Ib
8,410 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed, the calculated gain was 127 km/h, but Shavrov
gives the actual achieved speed as 674 km/h (419 mph), 16 km/h
slower than the original La-9.
Right: Three views of La-9RD.
85
LAVOCHKIN La-7R AND '120R'
Lavochkin La 7R and '120R'

Purpose: To use a rocket engine to boost a
fighter's flight performance.
Design Bureau: OKB of Semyon A
Lavochkin.
By early 1944 the all-wood La-5 fighter had
given way in production to the La-7, with
metal spars and other modifications. The engine remained the ASh-82FN 14-cylinder radial rated at 1,600hp. One of the first production
aircraft was fitted with an RD-1 rocket engine
in order to boost its performance, especially
at extreme altitudes where the ASh-82 family
of engines were less impressive. The installation was completed in the late autumn of
1944, and ground testing occupied nine
weeks. In the last week of the year the assigned pilot, Georgii M Shiyanov, began the
flight-test programme. Together with
AVDavydov the La-7R was flown 15 times
without serious malfunction, though the pro-
Above: Ground test of '120R' rocket engine.

Opposite: Two views of La-7R.
gramme had to be abandoned because of

progressive weakening of the rear fuselage by
vapour and accidental spillage of the acid.
Testing was continued with the RD-lKhZ installed in a second La-7R in early 1945. Brief
testing was also carried out with a similar engine installed in the '120R'. On 18th August
1946 this aircraft excited spectators at the Aviation Day at Tushino by making a low flypast
with the rocket in operation.
Both the La-7R test aircraft were originally
standard production fighters. The RD-1 was
one of the world's first liquid-propellant rocket engines to fly in a manned aircraft, the designer being V P Glushko. The thrust chamber
was mounted on a framework of welded
steel tubes carried behind a modified rear
fuselage frame, which merged at the top into
the fin trailing edge. To accommodate the
rocket the lower part of the rudder was removed. In the fuselage behind the cockpit
were a stainless-steel tank for 180 litres (39.6
Imperial gallons) of RFNA (concentrated red
fuming nitric acid) and 90 litres (19.8 Imperial gallons) of kerosene. These propellants
were supplied by a turbopump energised by
hot gas bled from the main thrust chamber.
The turbine had a governed speed of
26,000rpm, and drove pumps for the two propellants plus lubricating oil and water supplied from a small tank to cool the turbine and
thrust chamber walls. Mass of the installation
was approximately 100kg (220 Ib), or 215kg
(474 Ib) complete with propellants and water.
The basic RD-1 had electrical ignition, while
the RD-1 KhZ had automatic chemical ignition
from hypergolic liquids. The rocket was of the
on/off type, cut in or out by a switch on the
main throttle lever. It could not be varied in
thrust (300kg, 661 Ib, at sea level), but could
be shut off before the tanks were empty, nor-
mal duration being 3 to 31/2min. Both La-7R aircraft retained their armament of two UB-20
cannon. The ' 120R' differed in having an ASh83 engine, rated at 1,900hp, armament of two
NS-23 guns and in other details.
Together with such other aircraft as the Pe2RD and Yak-3RD these test-beds confirmed
the value of a rocket engine in boosting performance at high altitude. On the other hand
they also confirmed that RFNA is not compatible with a wooden structure, and in any case
the value of three minutes of boost was considered questionable.
Dimensions (both)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.8m
8.6m
17.59m2
32 ft IK in
28 ft TM
189ft 2
Weights (La-7R)
Empty
Fuel and propellants
Loaded
2,703kg.
604kg
3,500kg
5,959 Ib
l,3321b
7,716 Ib
Weights ('120R')
2,770kg
6,107 Ib
Empty
Fuel and propellants
470kg
l,0361b
Loaded
3,470kg
7,650 Ib
A standard La-7 typically had empty and loaded weights of 2,600kg
and 3,260 kg
Performance
(La-7R) generally unchanged, but maximum speed at 6 km (19,685
ft) altitude was increased from 680 km/h (422.5 mph) to 752 km/h
(467 mph).
Service ceiling was increased from 10,700 m (35,105 ft) to 13,000 m
(42,651 ft).
The only figure recorded for the '120R' is a speed (height unstated)
of 725 km/h (450.5 mph), but this speed (at 7,400 m) is also
recorded for the unboosted '120'.
120R'
86
LAVOCHKIN La-7R AND ' 1 2 0 R ' / '164' (La-126PVRD) AND '138' (130PVRD-430)
Lavochkin '164' (La-126PVRD) and '138' (130PVRD-430)

Purpose: To test the use of ramjets to boost
propulsion of a fighter.
Design Bureau: The OKB of S A Lavochkin.
By 1942 M M Bondaryuk had achieved reliable operation with the VRD-430. By this time
this refined subsonic ramjet had flown over
200 times on test-bed aircraft. In early 1946
two were attached under the wings of' 126', a
slightly modified La-7, to produce the La126PVRD, given the OKB number '164'. The
assigned pilot was A V Davidov, and he tested
this aircraft between June and September
1946.
The VRD-430 was a simple ramjet designed
for subsonic operation. It was made mainly of
steel, and had a diameter of 400mm (1ft 3%in).
Able to burn almost any thin hydrocarbon

fuel, including high-octane petrol (gasoline),
it had a thrust in the region of 300kg (661 Ib),
but performance data for this engine have not
been found, neither have details of its fuel
and control system. The La-126 was based on
the La-7 but had a completely metal stressedskin airframe, a new wing of so-called laminar profile, a modified canopy and many
other changes, including the devastating armament of four NS-23 guns firing projectiles
with more than twice the mass of the 20mm
ShVAK. The La-138 was basically an La-9
fighter, in which the new wing and armament
of the La-126 were matched with a completely redesigned fuselage. As before, a
VRD-430 ramjet was hung under each wing,
to produce the '164'. The '138' was the designation of the '130' after it had been fitted with
two VRD-430 ramjets. It emerged in this form
at the end of 1946, and flight tested 20 times
between March and August 1947. Very few
details survive regarding this aircraft, possibly
because in the turbojet era it did not appear
to be important.
The VRD-430 demonstrated its ability to
boost speed (see below) but at the expense
of high fuel consumption and a serious increase in drag when the ramjets were not
being used. It is not clear why the La126PVRD speed was 'boosted by 64km/h' by
the ramjets, while the corresponding figure
for the La-138 was almost twice as great.
87
LAVOCHKIN '164' (La-126PVRD AND '138' (130PVRD-430)

Dimensions (164)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.8m
8.64m
17.59m2
32 ft 1% in
28 ft 41i in
189.3ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
2,710kg
3,275kg
5,974lb
7,22011)
Performance
Max speed at 2,340 m (7,678 ft) 694 km/h
Range with brief VRD usage 730 km
Landing speed
145.6 km/h
/run
688 m
431 mph
454 miles
90.5 mph
2,257 ft
La-126PVRD, also called La-7/2PVRD-430

or La-164.
La-138, also called La-130/2PVRD-430.
Top left and right, bottom left: Three views of La-126PVRD

Bottom right: La-138.
88
Dimensions (138)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.8m
8.625 m
17.59nf
32 ft \% in
28 ft 3^ in
189.3ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
3,104kg
3,730kg
6,843 Ib
8,223 Ib
Performance
Max speed at 6,000 m (19,685 ft) 760 km/h 472 mph
which does not quite equate with the contemporary claim of
'boosted by 107-1 12 km/h'
Range with brief VRD usage 1,100km
683.5 miles
Take-off run
450m
1,476ft
Landing speed
139 km/h
86.4 mph
MAI EMAI-1
MAI EMAI-1
E-MAI-l
Purpose: To see whether a safe aeroplane

could be constructed from magnesium.
Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute.
As magnesium has a density of 1.74, compared with 2.7 for aluminium and almost 8 for
typical steels, it seemed reasonable to the
MAI management to investigate its use as a
primary structural material. In 1932 such a
project was authorised by Director A M Belenkovich and the GUAP (civil aviation ministry), and a year later a design team was
assembled under Professors S I Zonshain
and A L Gimmelfarb, with construction led by
N F Chekhonin. A neat four-seat low-wing
monoplane was quickly designed, and flown
about 600 times in 1934-39. It was also statically tested at (CAHI) TsAGI.
The EMAI was also known as the E-MAI,
Elektron MAI, EMAI-1, E-l, EMAI-I-34 and
Sergo Ordzhonikidze. Elektron is the name of
the alloy with Al, Mn and Zn, considerably
stronger than pure Mg, which was used for
most of the airframe. The straight-tapered
wings were based on Steiger's Monospar
principles, with the ribs and single spar built
up from square and tubular sections. The entire trailing edge was hinged, forming ailerons
and plain flaps. The well-profiled fuselage
was largely skinned in Elektron, the wings
and tail being covered in fabric. On the nose
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
12.0m
7.03m
20.0 m2
39 ft 4!4 in
23ft 3 /4in
215ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel and oil
Loaded
700kg
165kg
1,200kg
l,5431b
364 Ib
2,646 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Range
Landing speed
227 km/h
800km
75 km/h
141 mph
497 miles
46.6 mph
was the Salmson seven-cylinder radial engine, rated at 175hp, in a ring cowl and driving
a two-blade propeller. The strut-braced
tailplane was mounted high on the fin, and
the rubber-sprung main landing gears had
spats. The cockpit was covered by one sliding
and one hinged canopy. Most of the structure
was welded, but many joints were bolted so
that they could be dismantled.
The EMAI-1 was judged to be a comple success, with a structure weight '42 per cent
lower than using aluminium, steel tube or
wood'. The fire risk was not considered a serious hazard, and according to MAI the main
reason for not taking the use of Elektron further was because in the USSR there was not
enough spare electric power available to produce the magnesium.
89
MAI-62 A N D MAI-63
MAI-62 and MAI-63

Purpose: To investigate light flying-wing
aircraft.
Design Bureau: Moscow Aviation Institute.
In 1958 the academic faculty of the Institute
decided to carry out a major investigation into
LK (Letayushcheye Krylo, flying wing) aircraft. The programme began with the LK-MAI
glider and the MAI-59 ultralight, but these remained on the drawing board. Extensive tunnel testing of models led to a configuration
with a broad diamond or lozenge-shaped
centre section and swept outer panels which
at their tips turned back (sweepback 90) to
terminate in surfaces doubling as airbrakes
and as elevens. The MAI-62 was designed and
built in 196I-62, but it was not flown until in
1965 AI Pietsukh attempted a take-off. Dur-
ing the long run the engine seriously overheated and ran intermittently, and the takeoff was abandoned. The MAI-63 glider
followed in 1963, first flown in 1964 by
AI Pietsukh. In 1965 an engine was fitted, to
produce the MAI-63M, but again the engine
proved 'unsteady' and the aircraft never flew
in this form.
Both the MAI-62 and MAI-63 were made almost entirely of wood, with birch ply veneer
covering. Both had a single-seat cockpit with
a sideways-hinged canopy, cable-operated
wingtip elevons which could split into upper
and lower halves to act as airbrakes, and
fixed nosewheel landing gear. The MAI-62
was powered by a Khirt air-cooled engine of
80hp driving a two-blade pusher propeller.
The years 1962-65 were spent tinkering with
the details of the wings, which had a leadingedge sweep of 45 (shown in drawings as
50), adding or subtracting various fences,
inboard flaps, trim tabs and servo tabs. Released photographs carefully avoided showing these surfaces. The MAI-63 had a much
greater span, with leading-edge sweep reduced to 25, and two different forms of split
tip airbrakes supplemented by constantchord hinged trailing edges to the main wing.
The engine of the MAI-63M was a VP-760,
rated at 23hp.
One is left wondering whether the failure of
these aircraft to fly was really due to the engine or to doubts about their controllability.
Below left: MAI-62.
Bottom: MAI-63.
Development of the MAI 'LK' series
Dimensions MAI-62
Span
5.0 m
length
5.0 m
wing area
6.0 m2
Weight empty
250 kg
loaded
380 kg
Performance not measured.
16ft45Un
16 ft 43/ in
64.6ft 2
551 Ib
838 Ib
Dimensions MAI-63M
Span
12.6m
41 ft 4 in
length not recorded;
wing area
9.0 m2
96.9 ft2
Weight and performance data not recorded.
90
M I K H E L ' S O N MP
Mikhel'son MP
Purpose: To build a faster torpedo-carrying
aircraft.
Design Bureau: Factory No 3 Krasnyi
Lyotchik 'Red Flyer', Leningrad, see below.
The designation MP derived from Morskoi
Podvesnoi, naval suspended. The reasoning
began with the belief that to attack a heavily
defended ship called for a small and agile aircraft with high performance, but that such an
aircraft could not have a long range. Accordingly engineer N Val'ko suggested carrying
the attack aircraft under a large long-range
aeroplane in the manner pioneered by
Vakhmistrov. In 1936 this concept was accepted by the VMF (war air fleet) and assigned to N G Mikhel'son in partnership with
AI Morshchikhin, with assistance from
Vakhmistrov. The design was completed by
VVNikitin (see page 145). According to
Shavrov 'During prototype construction numerous problems arose, and since half could
not be solved it was decided to discontinue
development'. In fact, by 1938 the MP was
ready for flight, but the political atmosphere
(the Terror) was so frightening that nobody
dared to sanction the start of flight testing in
case anything went wrong. The MP was accordingly given to the Pioneers' Palace.
The MP was superficially arranged like a

fighter, with an 860hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs
engine driving a three-blade propeller and
cooled by a radiator in the top of the fuselage
behind the cockpit. The airframe was made
almost entirely from duralumin, though the
basis of the fuselage was a truss of welded
Cr-Mo steel tube. The cockpit was enclosed
and featured the then-fashionable forwardsloping windscreen. Flight-control surfaces
were covered in fabric. The 45-36-AN, a fullsize 553mm torpedo, was carried in a large
recess under the fuselage. For ground manoeuvring the aircraft had wheeled main
landing gear and a tailskid. The main gears retracted upwards, the shock struts travelling
outwards along tracks in the wing. The
loaded MP was to be hoisted under a TB-3
carrier aircraft and carried close to the target,
such as an enemy fleet. The engine would
then be started and the aircraft released, with
the TB-3 in a dive to increase speed at release.
The MP would then aim its torpedo and fly
back to its coastal base. Before landing, the
pilot would engage a mechanism which
would raise the engine 20 upwards. The MP
could then alight on the water and taxi to its
mooring. The water landing was facilitated by
the high position of the horizontal tail and the
location of the engine radiator on top of the

rear fuselage. The unladen aircraft was designed to float with the wings just resting on
the water (see front view drawing), the wings
serving as stabilizing sponsons.
There is no reason to doubt that this
scheme might have proved practicable. One
of the drawings shows in side elevation a proposed faster next-generation aircraft developed from the MP.
Dimensions
Span
Length about
Wing area
8.5m
8.0m
20.0m 2
27 ft 10% in
26 ft 3 in
215ft 2
Weights
Empty about
Loaded
2,200 kg
3,200 kg
4,850 Ib
7,055 Ib
Performance not recorded.
MP, with additional side view of projected highspeed development.
Mikhel'son MP
91
M I K H E L ' S O N MP / M i G - 8 U T K A
Above and right: Details of engine and radiator (both marked 'secret').
MiG-8 Utka
Purpose: To create a safe and easily flown
light aeroplane.
Design Bureau: OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.
MiG-8 original configuration.
92
Previously famous for a succession of highperformance fighters, the MiG bureau began
to relax as the Great Patriotic War ended.
Without any requirement from GUAP,
Aeroflot or anywhere else, its principals decided to investigate the design of a light air-
craft with an M-ll engine which could replace the Po-2 (originally designated U-2) as
a machine which could be safely flown by
any pilot from almost any field. The project
was assigned to students at the WA (air
force academy) under Col (later Professor)
G A Tokayev. The OKB kept a close watch on
the design, and soon judged that its slightly
swept wing could be useful in assisting the
design of future jet fighters. The main elements of the design were settled by July 1945,
and thereafter construction was rapid. The
aircraft was named Utka (duck) because of
its canard configuration. Aleksandr Ivanovich
Zhukov made the first flight on 19th November 1945. The wingtip fins and rudders proved
unsatisfactory, and for the next six months
the MiG-8 was modified repeatedly, as explained below. Its flight testing was handled
by OKB pilot Aleksei Nikolayevich Grinchik,
assisted by I Ivashchenko and other pilots of
the LII MAP (Ministry Flight Research Institute). By the summer of 1946 the MiG-8 was
considered more or less perfect. No explanation is available for the fact that this aircraft
never went into production as the Po-2 replacement. The MiG-8 was used for many
years as the OKB's communications aircraft,
and also as a test-bed for various kinds of research.
The MiG-8 was a small cabin aircraft distinguished by a pusher engine at the tail, a canard foreplane and a high-mounted wing at
the rear. Construction was of wood, mainly
pine, with ply skin over the fuselage, wing
leading edge and fixed foreplane. The wing
had Clark Y-H section, with a thickness/chord
ratio of 12 per cent. In plan the wings were untapered but swept back at 20, with V-struts to
MiM-8 UTKA
the bottom of the fuselage. The fuselage comprised a cabin with a door on each side, tapering at the rear around the M-11F radial
engine rated at HOhp, driving a 2.36m (7ft
9in) two-blade wooden propeller. A total of
195 litres (43 Imperial gallons) of fuel was
housed in aluminium tanks in each wing. At
the front of the cabin a Po-2 instrument panel
was installed for the pilot, and two passenger
seats were added behind, with a small space
for luggage behind them. Ahead of the cabin
a slender nose was added to carry the delta
foreplane, fixed at 3 incidence. This was fitted with fabric-covered elevators provided
with trim tabs, with movement of 25. Total
foreplane area was 2.7m2 (29ft2). On the outer
wings were fabric-covered ailerons, ahead of
which were large fixed slats on the leading
edge. On the wing tips were delta-shaped fins
carrying one-piece rudders, with a total combined area of 3m2 (32.3ft2). All control surfaces were operated by rods and bellcranks.
The landing gear comprised a levered-suspension nose unit with a 300x150mm tyre,
and spatted mainwheels with 500 x 150mm
tyres and pneumatic brakes on cantilever
legs pivoted to the strut attachment bulkhead, with bungee shock absorbers in the
fuselage. Provision was made for skis, but no
photographs show these fitted. The first flight
showed that directional stability was poor.
The wing was given 1 anhedral, and the fins
and rudders were moved in to 55 per cent of
the semi-span and mounted vertically, with a
mass balance projecting ahead from the bottom of each rudder. The spats were removed,
and a new nose gear was fitted with the same
wheel/tyre as the main units. Later the wing
anhedral was increased to 2. Considerable
attention was paid to engine cooling, and
eventually the projecting cylinders were fitted
with individual helmets, though no photographs have been found showing this (they
were eventually removed except over the
two bottom cylinders). In its final form the
MiG-8 had a single fuel tank between the firewall and engine. An important further modification was to remove the slats, and
photographs also show that in the final configuration the wingtips were angled downwards. At one time the entire aircraft was
covered with tufts to indicate the airflow. In
its final form the MiG-8 was nice to fly, and recovery from a spin was achieved merely by
releasing the flight controls.
Despite its unusual configuration the MiG-8
was eventually developed into an excellent
aircraft, safe to fly and easily maintained,
though at the end of the day it was j udged that
future jet fighters should not have a canard
configuration. No explanation has been given
for the fact that the MiG-8 never led to production utility, ambulance or photographic
aircraft.
Top left: MiG-8 original configuration.
Dimensions
Span
length
wing area
9.5m
6.995 m
15.0m2
31 ft 2 in
22 ft 11% in
161.5ft2
Weights
Empty (as built)
(later)
Fuel/oil
Loaded
652kg
642kg
140+ 14 kg
1,150kg
l,4371b
1,415 Ib
309+31 Ib
2,535 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed at sea level
(as built)
(later)
Range
Take-off run
Landing speed
205km/h
210km/h
500 km
238 m
77 km/h
127 mph
130.5 mph
311 miles
781ft
48 mph
Top right: On ground with spats.

Centre: In flight with slats open.
Above: Fully tufted to show airflow.
93
M i G I-250, M i G - 1 3 , N
MiG I-250, MiG-13, N

Purpose: To boost the speed of a pistonengined fighter.
Design Bureau: The OKB-155 of AI Mikoyan.
In 1942 the Central Institute for Aviation Motors (often abbreviated as TsIAM) began to
develop an unusual method of boosting the
propulsive power of fighter aircraft. Called
VRDK (from Russian for 'air reaction auxiliary
compressor') it involved adding a drive from
the main engine to an auxiliary compressor
for a flow of air rammed in at a forward-facing inlet. The compressed air was then expelled through a combustion chamber and
propulsive nozzle. This scheme was worked
on by a team led by V Kh Kholshchevnikov. In
January 1944 the governments of the UK and
USA announced their possession of jet aircraft. In a near-panic response, the GKO
(State Committee for Defence) ordered all
the main Soviet fighter OKBs to build jet aircraft. Stalin criticised designers for not already having such aircraft. As the only Soviet
turbojet (the Lyul'ka VRD-2) was nowhere
near ready for use, MiG and Sukhoi were assigned the urgent task of creating prototype
fighters to use the VRDK booster system. Both
quickly came to the conclusion that the VRDK
method could not readily be applied to any of
their existing fighters, and both designed special (quite small) fighters to investigate it. The
MiG aircraft was called N by the OKB, and
given the official designation I-250. The project was assigned to G Ye Lozino-Lozinskii. A
mock-up was approved on 26th October
1944, and after frantic effort the 'N' Nol was
rolled out painted white on 26th February
1945. OKB pilot A P Dyeyev began the flighttest programme on 3rd March. Soon the
magic 800km/h mark was exceeded, and
Mikoyan presented Dyeyev with a car. VRDK
operation was generally satisfactory but deafeningly noisy. On 19th May a tailplane failed at
low level and the 'N' Nol crashed. By this
time 'N' No2 was almost ready to fly. Painted
dark blue, with a yellow nose and horizontal
streak, it was restricted to 800km/h to avoid a
repetition of the failure. Stalin had meanwhile
ordered that a 'regiment' of ten of these aircraft should fly over Red Square on 7th November, October Revolution Day. 'N' No 2
was tested by LII pilot A P Yakimov, assisted
by OKB pilot A N Chernoburov. This aircraft
was written off in a forced landing in 1946.
The hastily built ten further I-250s were tested
by IT Ivashchenko. On 7th November nine
were ready, but the flypast was cancelled because of bad weather. In late 1946 Factory
No 381 was given an order for 16 fully
equipped fighter versions, designated MiG13. Factory testing of these took place in May94
July 1947,1 M Sukhomlin carried out NIl-WS

testing between 9th October 1947 and 8th
April 1948, and these aircraft were then delivered to the AV-MF. They served with the Baltic
and Northern Fleets until 1950.
Aircraft N bore little similarity to any previous MiG design. Made entirely of metal, with
a stressed-skin covering, it was smaller than
most fighters, whereas its predecessors had
been larger. The straight-tapered wing had a
CAHI 10%-thick laminar aerofoil, with two
spars and plate ribs. Movable surfaces comprised two-part Frise ailerons and hydraulically operated CAHI slotted flaps. The fuselage
was relatively deep to accommodate the
unique propulsion system. The engine was a
VK-107, rated at l,650hp for take-off and
l,450hp at 3,500m (12,470ft). At the front it
was geared down to drive the AV-5B threeblade constant-speed propeller of 3.1m (10ft
2in) diameter. At the back it drove the engine's own internal supercharger as well as a
clutch which, when engaged, drove through
13:21 step-up gears to a single-stage axial
compressor. This pumped air through a large
duct from a nose inlet. Just behind the compressor was the engine's cooling radiator. Behind this were seven nozzles from which,
when the auxiliary compressor was engaged,
fuel from the main tanks was sprayed and ignited by sparking plugs. The resulting flame
filled the large combustion chamber, from
which a high-velocity jet escaped through a
two-position nozzle. Downstream of the
burners the entire duct was refractory steel,
and when the VRDK was in operation its walls
were cooled by water sprayed from a 78 litre
(17 Imperial gallon) tank, the steam adding to
the thrust. At 7,000m (22,966ft) the VRDK was
estimated to add l,350hp, to a total of
2,500hp. The oil cooler surrounded the propeller gearbox, with flow controlled by gills
round the top of the nose. The engine was
mounted on a steel-tube truss. Fuel was
housed in three self-sealing tanks, one of 415
litres (91.3 Imperial gallons) in the fuselage
and one of 100 litres (22.0 Imperial gallons) in
each wing. The large central tank forced the
cockpit to be near the tail, with a sliding
canopy. The metal-skinned tail was repeatedly modified, the small elevators having a
tab on the left side. A unique feature of the
main landing gear was that the wheels were
carried on single levered-suspension arms
projecting forward from the leg. The tailwheel was fully retractable. Even the first aircraft, called 'N' Nol, was fully armed with
three B-20 cannon, each with 160 rounds. The
MiG-13 batch differed in having a larger vertical tail, larger fuel and water tanks, RSI-4
radio with a wire antenna from the fin to a
mast projecting forwards from the windscreen, and (temporarily) strange curved propeller blades in an attempt to reduce tip Mach
number.
These aircraft performed as expected, but
were a dead-end attempt to wring the last bit
of performance from piston-engined fighters.
Dimensions (I-250)
Span
Length
Wing area
9.5m
8.185m
15.0m2
31 ft 2 in
26 ft 1 OX in
161 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil/water
Loaded
2,935kg
450/80/75 kg
3,680 kg
6,470.5 Ib
992/1 76/1 65 Ib
8,1131b
Performance
at 7,000 m (22,966 ft)
Service ceiling
(without VRDK)
Range (with brief VRDK)
(no VRDK)
Take-off speed/
run
Landing speed/
run
620km/h
825 km/h
3.9 min
11,960m
10,500m
920km
1,380km
200 km/h
400m
150 km/h
515m
385 mph
513 mph
(16,404ft)
39,240ft
34,450 ft
572 miles
858 miles
124 mph
1,312ft
93 mph
1,690ft
Dimensions (MiG- 13)

Span
Length
Wing area
9.5m
8.185m
15.0m2
31 ft 2 in
26ftlOXin
161 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil/water
Loaded
3,028kg
590/80/78 kg
3,931 kg
6,675 Ib
1,301/1 76/1 72 Ib
8,666 Ib
Performance
at 7,000m (22,966 ft)
Service ceiling
without VRDK
Range (with brief VRDK)
(no VRDK)
Take-off speed/
run
Landing speed/
run
620 km/h
825 km/h
3.9 min
11,960m
10,500m
1,818km
1,380km
200 km/h
400m
195 km/h
515m
385 mph
513 mph
(16,404ft)
39,240 ft
34,450ft
1,1 30 miles
858 miles
124 mph
1,312ft
121 mph
1,690ft
Photographs on the opposite page:
Top: I-250 Nol.

Centre: I-250 No 2.
Bottom: Production MiG-13 (straight propeller
blades).
M i G I-250, M i G - 1 3 , N
I-250 No I / N o 2, MiG-13
I-250 inboard profile
I-250 Nol
I-250 No 2
MiG-13
95
MiG I-270, Zh
MiG I-270, Zh
Purpose: To investigate the potential of a
rocket-propelled interceptor.
Design Bureau: OJB-155 of A I Mikoyan.
As a major (in most respects the greatest) pioneer of rocket-propelled aircraft, the Soviet
Union was intrigued to capture examples of
the Messerschmitt Me 163 and Me 263
(Ju 248). In 1944 the MiG OKB produced 'doodles' of Me 163 type aircraft, but in 1945 the
bureau received a contract to build two prototypes of a rocket interceptor (a similar contract was awarded to A S Moskalyov). The
MiG aircraft was designated >K, the Cyrillic
character sounding like the s in 'measure',
represented in English as Zh, and given the official designation I-270. To prepare for the aircraft's handling qualities several OKB and
NIl-WS pilots practised with a Yak-3 overloaded by lead bars. The first I-270 was ready
for flight well before its propulsion system.
The rocket engine was simulated by an inert
mass in the tail, but the Zh-01 was still well
below normal weight because it lacked propellants, armament, radio and the windmill
generator, in early December 1946 VN
Yuganov began testing it as a glider at speeds
up to 300km/h (186mph), casting off from a
Tu-2 tug. At the start of 1947 Zh-02 was ready,
with propulsion, and it began testing (precise
date not recorded), the assigned pilot being
A K Pakhomov of the WS. On an early flight
I-270, Zh
96
he made a badly judged landing which damaged 02 beyond economic repair. A few
weeks later Yuganov belly-landed 01, and
again nobody bothered to repair it.
Generally similar in layout to the Ju 248, except for the prudent addition of a high-mounted horizontal tail, the I-270 was of course
all-metal. The small wing had a laminar profile, fixed leading edge, slotted flaps and conventional outboard ailerons. Structurally it
was unusual in having five spars. The tail
comprised a large fin and mass-balanced
rudder and a small tailplane with elevators
which, like the ailerons, had bellcrank fairings on the underside. The circular-section
fuselage had the wing amidships at middepth, attached from below as a single unit.
The cockpit in the nose was pressurized by air
bottles, and the seat could be ejected by a
cordite gun. The tricycle landing gear had a
track of only 1.6m (5ft Sin) despite the main
wheels being inclined slightly outwards.
Wheelbase was 2.415m (7ft llin), the nose
unit being steerable. Each unit retracted forwards, power for the landing gear and flaps
being provided by air bottles. The rocket engine was an RD-2M-3V, developed by
L S Dushkin and V P Glushko. The fuselage
behind the cockpit was almost entirely occupied by four tanks housing 1,620kg (3,571 Ib)
of RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) and 440kg
(970 Ib) of kerosene. These were initially fed
by an electrically driven pump, of Me 163 type.

As the liquids reached the chamber they
were automatically ignited by injection of
high-test hydrogen peroxide, of which 60kg
(132 Ib) was provided in seven stainless-steel
bottles. Once operating, the engine was fed
by turbopumps driven by the propellants
themselves. The engine had one main thrust
chamber, rated at sea level at 1,450kg
(3,1971b), and an auxiliary chamber rated at
400kg (882 Ib). Take-off and initial climb was
normally made with both in operation, when
endurance was about 41/2min. In cruising
flight, with the small chamber alone in use
(high-altitude thrust being about 480kg,
l,0581b), endurance was 9min. An electrical
system was served by a battery charged by an
Me 163 type windmill generator on the nose.
RSI-4 radio was fitted, with an external wire
antenna, and armament comprised two NS23 with 40 rounds each. A plan to fit four RS82 rockets under the wings was not actioned.
By the time they were built these aircraft
were judged to be of no military importance.

Top right: Zh-01, without engine.
Three views of I-270, Zh-02.
MiG I-270, Zh
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
7.75m
8.915m
12.0m2
Weights
Empty (Zh-02)
Acid/fuel/peroxide
Loaded
1,893kg
4,1731b
1,620/440/60 kg total 4,674 Ib
4,120kg
9,083 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level about
at high altitude
Time to climb to 10,000m
Service ceiling
Range
Take-off run
Landing speed (tanks dry)
Landing run
936km/h
l,000km/h
2.37 min
17,000m
not measured
895m
137km/h
493m
25 ft 5 in
29 ft 3 in
129ft 2
582 mph
621 mph
(32,800ft)
55,775ft
2,936 ft
85 mph
1,617ft
97
M1G-9L, FK
MIG-9L, FK
Purpose: To test the guidance system of a
cruise missile.
In late 1947 the Kremlin ordered the development of a large cruise missile which could be
launched (primarily against ships) from the
Tu-4. Because of the importance of this project it was assigned to a joint team formed by
OKB No 155 (MiG) and a new semi-political
group called SB-1 (Special Bureau Nol). The
OKB assigned one of the founders, M I GureMIG-9L, FK
M1G-9L, FK
98
vich, as titular head, but the Chief Designer

was A Ya Bereznyak who has figured previously on page 29 of this book. Head of SB-1
was S L Beria, son of the formidable Politburo
member who in 1953 succeeded Stalin. In
fact, SB-1 faded from the scene, as it had little
to contribute, though it did have P N Kusenko
as Chief Designer. Under intense pressure a
swept-wing turbojet-engined missile was
created, which later went into production as
the KS-1 Komet. In early 1949 its guidance system was tested in an Li-2 (Soviet derivative of
the DC-3), and later in that year a more representative system was tested in the FK (also
called MiG-9L, Laboratoriya). This was too
large to be carried aloft by a Tu-4, so it formated with the Tu-4 parent aircraft and
thence simulated the missile on its flight to
the target. Subsequently this aircraft was
used to test different cruise-missile guidance
systems, assisted by the K-l, a manned version of the KS-1 missile.
Aircraft FK was a modified MiG-9 twin-jet
fighter, the first type of turbojet aircraft to fly in
MiG-9L, FK
the Soviet Union. Features included a
straight-tapered wing of laminar profile of 9%
thickness with large slotted flaps and Frise
ailerons, a pressurized cockpit ahead of the
wing, a ground-adjustable tailplane mounted
part-way up the fin, a nosewheel retracting
forwards and main landing gears retracting
outwards, and a nose inlet feeding air to two
RD-20 turbojets (Soviet copies of the German
BMW 003A, each rated at 800kg, l,7641b,
thrust) mounted under the wing with jet nozzles under the trailing edge. The final production series had an ejection-seat, and the FK
was from this batch. The heavy nose armament of three NS-23K guns and all armour
were removed, and the fuselage was extended by splicing in an extra section accommodating an unpressurized rear cockpit with a
side-hinged canopy for the guidance-system
operator. As in the Komet, the missile's radar
dish antenna was mounted above the nose,
and a receiver antenna was mounted on the
leading edge of each wing. Above the fin was
a streamlined container housing the aft-facing transmitter and receiver antennas for the
radio-command guidance from the parent
aircraft after launch. Once the autopilot had
set the correct course the nose radar homed
on the parent's radar signals reflected back
from the target. Nearer the target the missile's
own radar became active, steering by signals

received by the leading-edge antennas.
So far as is known, the FK played a valuable
role in the development of one of the world's
first turbojet cruise missiles. So did the KSK, a
piloted version of the missile itself.
Dimensions (FK)
Span
Length
Wing area
10.0m
10.12m
18.2m2
32ft9 : Kin
33 ft 2 in
195.9ft2
No other data.
K-l, or KSK, manned version of Komet
K-l, KSK
99
MiG-15 E X P E R I M E N T A L VERSIONS

Design Bureau: In most cases, the OKB-155
of AI Mikoyan.
Made possible by Britain's export of RollsRoyce Nene turbojets to Moscow in September 1946, the Aircraft S marked a dramatic
leap forward in Soviet fighter design. First
flown on 30th December 1947, it was far
ahead of any other fighter in Europe. In 1949
it went into large-scale production as the MiG15. In the Korean war (1950-53) it completely
outperformed Allied aircraft (the F-86 was the
only rival in the same class) and put the name
'MiG' in the limelight around the world,
where it remains to this day. A total of 11,073
of all versions were constructed in the USSR,
and the global total exceeded 16,085 (the Chinese output is not known precisely). Many
have served in experimental programmes.
These, and other MiG types, require treatment that is not apposite in the context of this
book. What follows therefore is the specification for a typical standard late production version, the MiG-15b/s, incorporating numerous
aerodynamic, control, systems and engine
improvements over the original MiG-15. Much
more detail of experimental MiG-15s will be
included in an Aerofax on the MiG-15 which
will be published in 2001. The engine of the
MiG-15b/s was the VK-1, derived from the
Nene and rated at 2,700kg (5,952 Ib).
MiG-15 (SYe)
MiG-15 (SU)
100
Dimensions
Span
Wing area
10.085m
10.102m
20.6m 2
33 ft 1 in
33 ft 1% in
221.75ft 2
Weights
Empty
Internal fuel
Loaded (clean)
(maximum)
3,681 kg
1,173kg
5,055 kg
6,106kg
8,1151b
2,586 Ib
1 1,144 Ib
13,461 Ib
l,076km/h
1,107 km/h
46m/s
15,500m
1,330km
475m
178 km/h
670m
669 mph
688 mph
9,055 ft/min
50,850 ft
826 miles
1,558ft
1 1 1 mph
2,198ft
Performance
at 3,000m (9,842 ft)
Rate of climb (clean)
Service ceiling
Range (clean)
Take-off (clean)
Landing speed/
run
su
One of the experimental versions of the basic
(not >/s) aircraft was given the OKB designation SU. Originally a standard fighter, MiG-15
No 109035, with callsign 935 painted on the
fuselage, it was used to test the V-I-25/Sh-3.
This was the designation for a fighter armament system developed by the Shpital'nyi
weapons bureau. The standard quick-change
armament pack housing one 37mm and two
23mm guns was replaced by a fixed installation of two powerful Sh-3 23mm guns, each
with 115 rounds. Each gun was mounted

below the fuselage in a streamlined fairing.
The barrel projected through a vertical slot so
that, mounted on trunnions and driven by an
irreversible electric screwjack, it could be elevated to +11 and depressed to -7 (there
was no lateral movement). The Ministry order
for this conversion was signed on 14th September 1950, and the SU was factory-tested
between 2nd January and 27th March 1951.
NIl-WS testing followed from 30th June to
10th August 1951. The general opinion was
that in tight turning combat the system was
useful in bringing the guns to bear, and it also
enabled a head-on attack to be made with
less risk of collision. The NIl-WS report called
for a better sight, and for the guns to pivot over
a greater angular range.
SYe
Written SE in Cyrillic characters, this was a
tangible result of years of research into the
endemic problem of poor or even reversed
lateral control, wing drop and inadequate
yaw (directional) control, especially at high
Mach numbers. Most of the research was
done at CAHI (TsAGI), but two workers at
LIl-MAP (the Ministry flight research insti-
M i G - 1 5 / 17 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S
tute), I M Pashkovskii and D I Mazurskii, also
took a hand. After various tests they made
recommendations to AI Mikoyan, who ordered the OKB to construct two SYe aircraft,
based on the MiG-156/s. An obvious modification was that the fin leading edge was
kinked to maintain a, broad chord to the top.
Among other changes the wings were stiffened and fitted with ailerons of higher aspect
ratio ending in square tips. The first SYe, callsign 510, was assigned to LIl-MAP pilot D M
Tyuterev, who dived it to Mach 0.985 despite
having unboosted ailerons. The ailerons were
then fitted with BU-1 boosters, whereupon on
18th October 1949 Tyuterev dived it to beyond
Mach 1, the first MiG aircraft to achieve this.
Burlaki
One of the deeper problems of the Soviet ADD
(Strategic Aviation) was how to escort the
Tu-4. No fighter, especially a jet, had anything
like adequate range. Aircraft designer A S
Yakovlev suggested making the bombers tow
fighters to the target area (see Yak-25E).
Mikoyan briefly worked on a similar Burlaki
(barge-hauler) scheme, fitting a MiG-155/s
with a harpoon clamp above the nose which
the pilot could hook on a crossbar on the end
of a long cable reeled out from the Tu-4. If hostile fighters were encountered the MiG pilot
would start the engine, release the tow and engage combat. In theory he could then hook on
MiG-15 (SYe) test-bed.
again for the ride home. It was not considered

a viable idea, one reason being that with the
engine inoperative the MiG pilot had no cockpit pressurization and also became frozen.
Refuelling test-beds
An alternative to the Burlaki method was
Dozapravka v Vozdukhe, refuelling in flight.
Extensive trials took place in 1949-53 using
various MiG-15s and Tu-4 tankers. Eventually

a system was used almost identical to that devised by the British Flight Refuelling Ltd, with
hoses trailed from the tanker's wingtips and a
probe on the nose of the fighter. Apart from
the basic piloting difficulty, problems included probe breakage, pumping of bulk fuel into
the fighter's engine and the need for an improved beacon homing method for finding
the tanker at night or in bad weather.

Throughout 1949 the MiG OKB was busy creating the SI, the prototype of a MiG-15 derivative incorporating numerous improvements.
Most of these were aerodynamic, including a
completely redesigned wing, a horizontal tail
of increased sweep on an extended rear fuselage, and improved flight controls. The first
flight article, SI-2, was flown on 13th January
1950, and on 1st September 1951 MAP Order
No 851 required the SI to be put into production as the MiG-17. Because of the sheer momentum of MiG-15 production the improved
aircraft did not replace it in the factories until
October 1952. The following specification
refers to the MJG-17F, by far the most important version, which was powered by the afterburning VK-1F, with a maximum rating of
3,380kg (7,451 Ib).
Dimensions
Wing area
9.628 m
11.26m
22.64 m2
31 ft 7 in
36 ft 1 Min
243.7 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded (clean)
(maximum)
3,940kg
1,170kg
5,340kg
6,069 kg
8,686 Ib
2,579 Ib
1 1,772 Ib
13,380 Ib
l,100km/h
l,145km/h
684 mph
71 1.5 mph
1.15
22,966ft
l.Smin
3.7 min
16,404ft
32,808ft
16,600m
1,160km
1,940km
235km/h
590m
180km/h
850m
54,462 ft
721 miles
1,205 miles
146 mph
1,936ft
112 mph
2,789 ft
Span
Length
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level
at 3,000m (9,842 ft)
Mach limit
(clean over 7,000m)
Time to climb (afterburner)
to 5,000 m
to 10,000m
Service ceiling
(still climbing 3.6 m/s)
Range (clean)
(maximum)
Take-off speed/
run
Landing speed/
run
SN
In late 1953 the MiG Factory 155 produced an
experimental fighter representing the next
stage beyond the SU. This time the entire forward fuselage was redesigned to house the
pivoted guns, the engine being fed by lateral
inlets and ducts passing both above and
below the wing torsion box (which was given
front and rear fairings). Ahead of Frame 13
the entire nose was occupied by the SV-25 armament installation devised by the TKB (Tula
design bureau) of Afanas'yev and Makarov.
This was based on a large frame mounted on
needle-roller bearings on each side and pivoted on a transverse axis over the range
+27 267-9 28' (not 9 48' as previously published). On this frame were mounted three
TKB-495 lightweight 23mm guns, fed by box
magazines mounted on the fixed structure.
The whole installation weighed 469kg
(l,0341b), requiring a balancing increase in
the size of Tank 3 in the rear fuselage. As this
101
MiG-17 EXPERIMENTAL VERSIONS
F-
aircraft was so non-standard anyway the

OKB took the opportunity to try a few other
changes. Of course a special gunsight was
needed, and it may have been to improve the
optics that a new windscreen was designed,
wider and longer than before and giving a better field of view ahead. The SN was factorytested by Georgiy K Mosolov from mid-1953.
It proved a failure, with seriously reduced
flight performance and useless armament.
Because the guns were so far ahead of the
centre of gravity and centre of pressure of the
aircraft, firing them at large angles from the
horizontal caused powerful pitching moments
which threw the aim off-target. Mikoyan decided the problem was not readily soluble.
Numerous otherwise unmodified MiG-17s
were also used as armament test-beds.
SI-10
Two different SDK-5s.

MiG-17 (SN)
This MiG-17 was one of the original type with

the non-afterburning VK-1A engine, with callsign 214. Having studied the wing and tail of
the F-86E Sabre, this aircraft was fitted with
important aerodynamic and control changes.
The wing was fitted with large automatic slats
over the outer 76 per cent of each leading
edge, large area-increasing (Fowler-type)
flaps, and spoilers (called interceptors) under
the outer wings which opened whenever the
adjacent aileron was deflected more than 6.
In addition, a fully powered irreversible
tailplane was fitted, with limits of +37-5, retaining the elevators driven by a linkage to
add camber. Grigorii A Sedov flew No 214 on
27th November 1954, followed by many other
OKB and NIl-WS pilots. Opinions were
favourable, especially regarding the horizontal tail, but it was not worth disrupting MiG-17
production to incorporate the changes.
SDK-5
Already used for a MiG-15, this designation
was repeated for MiG-17s used for further
tests of the guidance system of the KS-1
Komet cruise missile. The original test-bed
for this system had been the M1G-9L, and like
that aircraft the SDK-5 had forward-facing antennas on the nose and wings and an aft-facing antenna above the tail. Like the MiG-9L
this aircraft later assisted development of the
large supersonic Kh-20 (X-20) missile.
Photograph on the opposite page:

MiG-19 (SM-10).
102
MiG-19 EXPERIMENTAL VERSIONS

Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan
Throughout the massive production of the
MiG-15 and MiG-17, with a combined total exceeding 22,000, the MiG OKB was eager to discard the British-derived centrifugal engine and
build truly supersonic fighters with indigenous
axial engines. It achieved this in sensible
stages. The M, or I-350, introduced the large
TR-3A axial engine and a wing with a leadingedge sweep of 60. The SM-2, or I-360, powered by twin AM-5 axial engines, at first was
fitted with a high T-type tail. Then the tailplane
was brought down to the fuselage, the design
was refined, and as the SM-9 with afterburning
engines (first flown 5th January 1954) achieved
production as the MiG-19. The SM-9/3 introduced the one-piece 'slab' tailplane, with no
separate elevator, and this was a feature of
the MiG-19S. Powered by two RD-9B engines
each with an afterburning rating of 3,250kg
(7,1651b), this had the devastating armament
of three NR-30 guns, each far more powerful
than the British Aden of the same calibre. The
following specification is for a typical MiG-19S.
Dimensions
Span
9.00m
Length (excl air-data boom) 14.8m
25.16m2
Wing area
29 ft 6% in
48 ft 6% in
271 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (clean)
(maximum)
5,455kg
7,560kg
8,832 kg
1 2,026 Ib
1 6,667 Ib
19,471 Ib
Performance
at 10,000 m (32,808 ft)
Time to climb to 10,000m
to 15,000m
Service ceiling
Range (clean)
(two drop tanks)
Take-off run (afterburner)
Landing speed/run
using parabrake
l,150km/h
l,452km/h
1.1 min
3.7 min
17,500m
1,390km
2,200km
515m
235 km/h
610m
715 mph
902 mph (Mach 1.367)
32,808ft
49,215ft
57,415ft
864 miles
1,367 miles
1,690ft
146 mph
2,000 ft
wing and the fourth projected with a kink

from above the starboard wing.
SM-20
This was a MiG-19S modified as a pilotless
aircraft to test the guidance system of the Kh20 cruise missile. This huge weapon was designed to be carried under a special version of
the Tu-95 heavy bomber, and one Tu-95K was
modified to carry and release the SM-20.
Apart from being equipped with the missile's
guidance system and a special autopilot and
various other subsystems, including a receiver link for remote-pilot guidance, the fighter
was fitted with a position beacon, radar reflector and destruct package. Suspension
lugs were built in above the centre of gravity,
and the parent aircraft had pads which
pressed on each side of the SM-20 canopy.
Tests began in October 1956. SM-20P described the aircraft after modification with
special engines able to vaporise the fuel to
ensure reliable starting at high altitudes.
SM-30
This designation applied to MiG-19 and MiG19S aircraft modified for ZELL (zero-length
launching). Nuclear weapons clearly made it
foolish to base combat aircraft on known airfields, so the ZELL technique was intended to
enable aircraft to be fired off short inclined
launchers by a large rocket. The launcher
was naturally made mobile, and most locations were expected to be in the extreme Arctic such as Novaya Zemlya. The aircraft
needed a strengthened fuselage, reinforced
fuel tanks and mounts, a special pilot headrest, and (in most cases) extra-large parabrakes or arrester hooks for short landings.
The usual rocket was the PRD-22, with a

thrust of 40,000kg (88,185 Ib) for 2.5 seconds.
Manned firings took place from 13th April
1957, the chief pilots being G Shiyanov and
Yu A Anokhin (not the more famous S N
Anokhin). Results were satisfactory, but the
scheme was judged impractical.
SM-50
This designation applied to the MiG-19 fitted
with a booster rocket engine in a pod underneath. Whereas previous mixed-power fighters had been primarily to test the rocket, the
SM-50 was intended as a fast-climbing fighter,
able very quickly to intercept high-flying
bombers. The first SM-50 was a MJG-19S fitted
with a removable ventral pack called a U-19
(from Uskoritel', accelerator). Made at the
MiG OKB, this was basically formed from two
tubes arranged side-by-side with a nose fairing. It contained an RU-013 engine from
L S Dushkin's KB, fed by turbopumps with
AK-20 kerosene and high-test hydrogen peroxide. The pilot could select either of two
thrusts, which at sea level were 1,300kg
(2,866Ib) or 3,000kg (6,614Ib). To avoid the
rocket flame the aircraft's ventral fin was replaced by two vertical strake-fins under the
engines (which were RD-9BM turbojets with
variable afterburning thrust but unchanged
maximum rating). The first SM-50 began
factory testing (incidentally after the Ye-50,
and long after the first MiG-21 prototypes) in
December 1957. Despite a take-off weight
of 9,000kg (19,841 Ib) a height of 20,000m
(65,617ft) was reached in under eight minutes with the rocket fired near the top of
the climb, boosting speed to l,800km/h
(1,118mph, Mach 1.695). Dynamic zoom ceiling was estimated at 24,000m (78,740ft). Five
pre-production SM-50s were built at Gor'kiy,
but they were used only for research.
SM-10
Though it had a generally longer range than
its predecessors the MiG-19 was required in a
decree of May 1954 to be developed with
flight-refuelling capability. At that time the
only tanker was a version of the piston-engined Tu-4, and a series MiG-19, callsign 415,
was fitted with a probe above the left (port)
wingtip, feeding into a large pipe with diverters and non-return valves to fill all the aircraft
tanks. By 1956 testing had moved to an extraordinary test-bed, callsign 10, fitted with no
fewer than four probes. One was at the bottom of the nose, another at top left on the
nose, a third on the leading edge of the port
103
From the top: SM-30, SM-50, SM-12/3, SM-12PM and SM-12PMU
SM-12
Early in the production of the MiG-19 it was realised that the plain nose inlet was aerodynamically inefficient at supersonic speeds,
and that a properly designed supersonic inlet
would enable maximum speed to be significantly increased without any change to the
engines. By the mid-1950s the OKB was well
advanced with the prototypes that led to the
MiG-21 and other types, all of which had inlets
designed for supersonic flight. In fact production of the MiG-19 in the Soviet Union was
quite brief - it was left to other countries to
discover what a superb fighter it was - and all
had the original inlet. A total of four SM-12
(plus two derived) aircraft were built, with
the nose extended to terminate in a sharplipped inlet. As in standard MiG-19s, across
the inlet was a vertical splitter to divide the
airflow on each side of the cockpit. This was
used to support a conical centrebody whose
function was to generate a conical shockwave at supersonic speeds. For peak pressure recovery, to keep the shock cone
focussed on the lip of the inlet the cone could
be translated (moved in or out) by a hydraulic
ram driven by a subsystem sensitive to Mach
number. A similar system has been used on
all subsequent MiG fighters, though the latest
types have rectangular lateral inlets. SM-12/1
was powered by two RD-9BF-2 engines with
a maximum rating of 3,300kg (7,275 Ib). SM12/2, /3 and /4 were powered by the R3-26,
with a maximum rating of 3,800kg (8,377 Ib).
All four SM-12 aircraft were fitted with improved flight control systems, wing guns only
and new airbrakes moved to the tail end
of the fuselage. A fifth aircraft, designated
SM-12PM, was fitted with pylons for two K-5M
guided missiles, which were coming into
production as the RS-2U. This required a guidance beam provided by an RP-21 (TsD-30) interception radar. The scanner necessitated a
greatly enlarged nosecone, which in turn
demanded a redesigned forward fuselage
with hardly any taper. Both guns were removed, and there were many other modifications. The sixth and final version was the
SM-12PMU, armed with two or four RS-2U
missiles. This aircraft was intended to intercept high-altitude bombers faster than any
other aircraft, so it combined two R3-26 engines with the U-19D rocket package. Numerous MiG-19 variants served as armament
test-beds, mainly for guided missiles.
Left: Rocket pack of SM-50.

Opposite page, top to bottom:
SM-30 on launcher.
SM-12/1.
SM-12/3 and SM-12PM with supersonic tanks.
SM-12PMU with K-5 (RS-2U) guided missiles.
104
SM-30 on launcher
105
MiG E X P E R I M E N T A L H E A V Y I N T E R C E P T O R S
MiG Experimental Heavy Interceptors

Purpose: To create a supersonic missilearmed all-weather interceptor.
Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan
I-3U, I-7U, I-75

In the second half of the 1950s the 'MiG' design team created a succession of interceptor
fighters which began by reaching 870mph
and finished 1,000mph faster than that. The
first was the I-1, first flown on 16th February
1955, which resembled a MiG-19 powered by
a single large VK-7 centrifugal engine. After a
major false start, this led to the I-3U, which
(contrary to many reports) was flown in late
1956 on the 8,440kg (18,607 Ib) thrust of a VK3 bypass jet (low-ratio turbofan). By this time
the aerodynamic shape, and indeed much of
the structure and systems, was extraordinarily similar to the contemporary Sukhoi prototypes. The next stage was the I-7U, flown on
22nd April 1957, which used the engine
picked earlier by Sukhoi, the excellent Lyul'ka AL-7F rated at 9,210kg (20,304Ib). In turn
this was rebuilt into the I-75, first flown on
28th April 1958. This was the first of the family of impressive MiG single-engined heavy interceptors, with powerful radar (Uragan
[hurricane] 5B) and armed only with missiles
(two large Bisnovat K-8). A second aircraft
was built from scratch, designated I-75F and
powered by the uprated AL-7F-1 with a maximum thrust of 9,900kg (21,8251b). The following specification refers to the I-75.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
9.976 m
18.275m
31.9m 2
32 ft 9^ in
59 ft 11^ in
343 ft2
Weights
Empty
Internal fuel
Loaded (clean)
(maximum)
8,274 kg
2,100kg
10,950kg
11,470kg
18,241 Ib
4,630 Ib
24,1 40 Ib
25,287 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
clean, at 1 1 ,000 m (36,089 ft) 2,050 km/h
with missiles
1,670 km/h
Time to climb to 6,000 m (19,685 ft)
Service ceiling
(Mach 1 .6 in afterburner) 1 9, 1 00 m
Range (internal fuel)
1 ,470 km
Take-off run
1,500m
Landing speed/run
240 km/h
with parabrake
1,600m
106
1,274 mph (Mach 1.93)

1,038 mph (Mach 1.57)
0.93 min
62,664ft
913 miles
4,921 ft
149 mph
5,249ft
Ye-150
Ye-152
This was built specifically to test the remarkable R-15 turbojet, created by S KTumanskii,
initially working in A A Mikulin's KB, which he
took over in 1956. This engine had been ordered to power future aircraft flying at up to
Mach 3 (the first application was a Tupolev
cruise missile). The MiG team led by Nikolai
Z Matyuk predictably adhered to the proven
formula of a tube-like fuselage with a variable
multi-shock nose inlet, mid-mounted delta
wing (the I-75 had had swept wings) and midmounted swept one-piece tailplanes. This time
the fuselage had to accept the R-15-300 engine's take-off airflow of 144kg (317.51b) per
second, and the dry and reheat ratings of this
engine were 6,840kg (15,080 Ib) and 10,150kg
(22,3771b). At high supersonic Mach numbers
the thrust was greatly increased by the ejectortype nozzle, a very advanced propulsion system for the 1950s. As the Ye-150 was not a
fighter the cockpit was enclosed by a tiny onepiece canopy of minimum drag. After prolonged delays, mainly caused by the engine,
the aircraft was flown by A V Fedotov on 8th
July 1960. It required frequent engine replacement, but among other things it reached
2,890km/h (l,796mph, Mach 2.72), climbed to
20km (65,617ft) in 5min 5 sec, and reached a
sustained altitude of 23,250m (76,280ft).
This was intended to be the definitive heavy

interceptor, combining the R-l5-300 engine
(uprated to 10,210kg, 22,509 Ib) with the airframe and weapons of the Ye-152A. Two were
built, Ye-152/1 and Ye-152/2. Apart from having a large single engine the obvious new feature was that the Ye-152/1 carried its K-9
missiles on down-sloping launch shoes on the
wingtips. Internal fuel was slightly increased,
and avionics were augmented. From its first
flight on 21st April 1961 it was plagued by engine problems, but eventually set a 100km
closed-circuit record at 2,401km/h (1,492
mph, Mach 2.26), a straight-line record at
2,681km/h (l,666mph, Mach 2.52) and a sustained-height record at 22,670m (74,377ft).
These were submitted to the FAI as having
been set by the 'Ye-166'. In fact both Mosolov
and Ostapenko achieved 3,030km/h (1,883
mph, Mach 2.85). The Ye-152/2 was intended
to have the Smerch (whirlwind) radar and associated Volkov K-80 missiles, but this was
never incorporated. It first flew on 21st September 1961, and after a brief factory test programme was rebuilt into the Ye-152P.
Ye-152A
This was essentially an interceptor version of
the Ye-150, but with the important difference
that it was powered by a pair of mature R-l 1F300 (early MiG-21 type) engines, with a combined maximum thrust of 11,480kg (25,309 Ib).
The airframe was designed to a load factor of
7, and 4,400 litres (968 Imperial gallons) of fuel
was provided in six fuselage and two wing
tanks, and provision was made for a centreline
drop tank. The Ye-152A was designed for almost automatic interceptions, guided by the
Uragan-5 ground-control system and its AP-39
autopilot, finally locking on its own TsP-1 radar
and firing the two MiG-developed K-9-155 missiles carried on down-sloping underwing pylons. This fine aircraft was first flown by
Mosolov on 1 Oth July 1959 (more than a year
before the Ye-150) and it reached 2,135km/h
(l,327mph, Mach 2.01) at 13,700m (44,950ft).
It caused a sensation when it made a flypast at
the 1961 Tushino airshow, being identified by
Western experts as the ( MiG-23' because that
was the next odd number after the MiG-21.
After a busy career it crashed in 1965.
Ye-152M
By the late 1950s the Mikoyan OKB had
moved on to envisage this as the ultimate single-engined heavy interceptor. It was to have
the R-15B-300 engine, with a maximum rating
of 10,210kg (22,509 Ib) and an improved
propulsive nozzle of convergent/divergent
form, considerably greater internal fuel capacity in an added fuselage spine, wingtip
rails for the Volkov K-80 missile (later produced as the R-4R and R-4T), and many other
modifications including canard foreplanes
which this time were to be fully powered. The
Ye-152/2 was rebuilt into the Ye-152P (from
Perekhvatchik, interceptor) as a stepping
stone to the Ye-152M. Externally it incorporated all the new features, including the roots for
the foreplanes, but the surfaces themselves
were not fitted. By the time the rebuild was
complete the IA-PVO (manned fighter branch
of the air defence forces) had selected the
Tupolev Tu-128, and Mikoyan was well ahead
with the far more impressive twin-engined
MiG-25. In 1965 the Ye-152P, with the missile
launchers replaced by more pointed wingtips, was put on display as the 'Ye-166',
adorned with the details of the records set by
the Ye-152/1. It still survives at the Monino
museum in Moscow.
Top left: I-3U.

Top right: I-7U.
Above and right: Two views of I-75.
Bottom: Ye-150.
107
MiG E X P E R I M E N T A L HEAVY INTERCEPTORS
108

Top left: \e-l52A.
Top right: Ye-152A with K-9-155 missiles.
Centre: Ye-152A with K-9-155 missiles.
Bottom: Ye-152/1 with K-9-155 missiles.
Photographs on this page:
Above: Ye-152M project model.
Top left, centre and bottom right: Ye-152M with K-80
missile mock-ups.
Top right: Ye-152M record version (so-called
'Ye-166') at Monino.
109

Ye-50
Ye-2, Ye-4, Ye-5
The Korean War of 1950-53 triggered a significant acceleration of development of weapons
in the Soviet Union. For the first time the 'MiG'
OKB found itself working under intense pressure on two distinct classes of fighter. The first
to be launched were the big radar-equipped
interceptors typified by a wing area of 30m2
(323ft2) and engines in the thrust range 9,072
to 13,608kg (20,000 to 30,000 Ib). The second
family were small but agile fighters intended
for close visual combat, characterised by
wings of some 22m2 (237ft2) and engines in
the 5,000kg (ll,0201b) class. The smaller aircraft were required to reach Mach 2 on the
level at heights up to 20km (65,617ft) whilst
carrying guns and a radar-ranging sight. Intensive tunnel testing failed to show clear superiority between a swept wing rather like a small
version of that of the MiG-19, with a leadingedge sweep of 61, and the new delta (triangular) shape with a leading-edge angle of 57,
so it was decided to build experimental versions of both. The single engine was Tumanskii's AM-9B (later called RD-9B), as used in
the twin-engined MiG-19, with a maximum afterburning thrust of 3,250kg (7,165 Ib). The following specification refers to the swept-wing
Ye-2, first flown on 14th February 1955. This
led to the mixed-power Ye-50. The Ye-4, the
first of the deltas, was very similar but had a
disappointing performance. Despite this, with
minor changes the delta Ye-5 was some
700km/h faster, leading to the production
MiG-21. Even though all versions had limited
capability, this small fighter was produced in
four countries in greater numbers than any
other military aircraft since 1945 apart from
the MiG-15. Assuming 2,400 for Chinese production the total was 13,409.
Dimensions
Length (excl pilot boom)
Wing area
8.109m
13.23m
21.0m 2
26 ft T/, in
43 ft 4% in
226ft 2
Weights
Empty
Internal fuel
Loaded
3,687kg
1,360kg
5,334kg
8,1281b
2,998 Ib
11,75915
Performance
Maximum speed
at 11, 000m (36,089 ft)
Service ceiling
Range (estimated)
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run
l,920km/h
19,000m
1,220km
700m
250km/h
800m
1,1 93 mph (Mach 1.8)

62,336ft
758 miles
2,297ft
155 mph
2,625 ft
Span
110
Right at the start of the 'Ye' programme

Mikoyan had planned a mixed-power prototype, the Ye-lA, with the afterburning turbojet
boosted by a Dushkin S-155 rocket engine.
This was never built, but in 1954 it was restored to the programme with the designation Ye-50. One reason was the British Saro
SR.53, with a similar propulsion system, and
another was that the definitive RD-11 (later
called R-l 1) engine was still some two years
off. An order was received for three Ye-50 aircraft, and Ye-50/1 made its first flight (without
using the rocket) on 9th January 1956, the
same day as the first Ye-5. Though similar in
size to the Ye-2 already described, the empty
weight of the Ye-50/1 was 4,401kg (9,702 Ib).
This was because of the rocket engine and its
tanks, an extended nose and additional
equipment. The main engine was an RD-9Ye
rated at 3,800kg (8,377 Ib). The S-155 was fed
with RFNA (red fuming nitric acid) and
kerosene by a turbopump in the swollen base
of the fin, driven by decomposing high-test
hydrogen peroxide. The thrust chamber was
immediately to the rear, above the main-engine afterburner. The whole rocket installation, though complex, was refined and
reliable. On the turbojet alone this heavy aircraft was underpowered, and the bulk of the
rocket and its tankage meant that with reduced jet fuel the range was very short. This
aircraft was damaged beyond repair on its
18th fiight on 14th July 1956. The Ye-50/2
reached 2,460km/h (l,529mph, Mach 2.32).
The Ye-50/3 incorporated various modifications, but suffered inflight catastrophe, killing
Nil pilot N A Korovin. Gor'kiy received a contract for a single Ye-50A with greatly increased rocket and jet fuel, made possible by
a large tank scabbed on under the fuselage,
but the Ministry decided against mixedpower aircraft (preferring much more powerful main engines) and the Ye-50A was never
completed.
to align themselves with the local airflow. To

prevent flutter a lead-filled rod projected
ahead of the leading edge at mid-span. Their
purpose was merely to reduce longitudinal
static stability, but they were considered to be
ineffectual in use.
Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A)
In 1960 the Ye-6T/l, the first true series-built
MiG-21, callsign Red-31, was rebuilt for
record purposes, with various modifications.
In order not to reveal too much to the FAI international body, it was given the invented
designation Ye-66A. The most obvious
change was to attach a rocket package underneath the fuselage. The rocket engine was
designated S-3/20M5A, the ultimate version of
Dushkin's family burning kerosene and RFNA
fed by peroxide turbopumps. The propellants
were packaged with the engine and control
system in a large gondola designated U-21.
Thrust was 3,000kg (6,614 Ib) at sea level, rising to about 3,700kg (8,150 Ib) at high altitude.
The rocket nozzle was angled 8 downwards,
but despite this it was necessary to replace
the usual MiG-21 underfin by two shorter but
deeper ventral fins each inclined outwards.
The main engine was replaced by an R-l 1F2300, with a maximum afterburning rating of
6,120kg (13,492 Ib); this engine later became
standard on the MiG-21 PF. Other modifications included 170 litres (37.4 Imperial gallons) of extra kerosene fuel in a spine fairing
behind the canopy, and a fin extended forwards to increase area of the vertical tail to
4.44m2 (47.7ft 2 ). The Ye-66A did not set any
ratified speed records, but on 28th April 1961
it was flown by G K Mosolov in a zoom to a
new world absolute height record of 34,714m
(113,891ft). He made a low flypast with rocket in operation at the airshow at Moscow
Tushino on Aviation Day (9th July) 1961.
MiG-21 PD, 23-31

Ye-6/3T
The MJG-21F, the first series version, went
into production at Gor'kiy in 1959. The factory designation was Ye-6/3T, and the third production aircraft, the 3T, was set aside to
explore the effect of fitting canard (nose)
foreplanes. These were small delta-shaped
surfaces with cropped tips, the leading-edge
angle being 45. They were not powered but
were pivoted on axes skewed at 40 and free
Also designated MiG-21 PD, and known to the

Mikoyan OKB as Izdeliye (product) 92, this
was essentially a MiG-21 PFM fighter fitted
with a lift-engine bay amidships. The early
1960s were a time when aircraft designers
around the world were excited by the possibility of VTOL (vertical take-off and landing),
which among other things enabled combat
aircraft to avoid nuclear destruction by dispersing away from known airfields. Dassault
put eight lift engines into the Mirage to create
Ye-50/l
111
the world's first Mach 2 VTOL. Mikoyan decided instead to build a STOL (short take-off
and landing) MiG-21. The engine KB of
P A Kolesov produced the simple RD-36-35, a
lift turbojet rated at 2,350kg (5,181 Ib). It
would only have needed four of these to give
the MiG-21 VTOL capability, but instead
Mikoyan installed just two. The fuselage was
removed between Frames 12 and 28A and replaced by a slightly widened fireproof bay
housing the two lift engines. They were not
pivoted but fixed at an inclination of 80. Fuel
was drawn from the (reduced) main tankage,
and starting was by impingement jets using
air bled from the R-11F2-300 main engine.
The top of the bay was formed by a large louvred door hinged at the back. In STOL mode
this door was pushed up by a hydraulic jack
to provide unrestricted airflow to the lift engines. Each jet blasted down through a vectoring box. Made of heat-resistant steel, this
provided seven curved vanes under each lift
jet. These were pivoted and could be vectored by the pilot through an angular range of
some 25 to provide forward thrust or braking. The 23-31 was intended for exploring
STOL, and for improved control at low airspeeds the main-engine bleed served reaction-control jets pointing down from under
the nose and under each wingtip. The landing
gears were fixed, and there was only one airbrake, of a new design, ahead of the lift-jet
bay. Pyotr M Ostapenko made the first flight
on 16th June 1966. He and BAOrlov both
considered control at low airspeeds to be inadequate, and Ostapenko said 'For take-off
you need maximum dry power on the main
engine, but for landing you need full afterburner!' This aircraft performed briefly at the
Moscow Domodedovo airshow on 9th July
1967. It was then grounded.
trailing edge of each wing were four fully able walls, and auxiliary inlets under the wing
powered surfaces, the inner pair being plain leading edge. On each side of the nose, just
flaps and the outer pair elevens (surfaces act- behind the radar, was a canard foreplane of
ing as both elevators and ailerons). The wing cropped delta shape, with anti-flutter rods
was incredibly thin, thickness/chord ratio similar to those of the Ye-6T/3. Normally free
being only 2.3 per cent inboard and 2.5 at the to align themselves with the airflow, at Mach
tip. Thus, the control-surface power units numbers in excess of 1.00 they were locked
were faired in underneath, the outer fairings at zero incidence. The effect was dramatic: at
extending over the entire chord of the wing. 15,000m (49,200ft) they enabled the accelerThe wing leading edge was made detachable ation in a sustained turn to be increased from
so that different shapes could be tested. 2.5 g to 5.1 g, and they gave significantly enAmong other modifications was an increase hanced lift in all flight regimes. Other modifiin fuel capacity to 3,270 litres (719 Imperial cations included a slightly lowered horizontal
gallons), and of course there was no provi- tail and a large underfin which was folded to
sion for armament. Partly because of a 'chick- starboard when the landing gear was extenden and egg' situation, in which Mikoyan was ed. All might have been well had not the deuncertain precisely what shape to make the sign team elected also to exchange the R-l 1
wing, whilst the purpose of the Analog was to engine for the immature R-21, from the Metteach Tupolev how to design the Tu-144's skhvarishvili KB, with afterburning rating of
wing, the programme ran at least a year too 7,200kg (15,873 Ib). Ye-8/1 was flown by
late to assist the design of the SST. Eventually Mosolov on 5th March 1962, and destroyed on
0 VGudkov flew 23-11/1 on 18th April 1968, 11 th September by catastrophic failure of the
with civil registration SSSR-1966, the intended engine. Ye-8/2, which had blown flaps, first
first-flight year. The Tu-144 pilots flew this air- flew on 29th June 1962 but suffered so many
craft before first flying the 44-00 (first Tu-144) engine faults this otherwise promising aircraft
on 31st December 1968, with the 23-11/1 ac- was abandoned.
companying it as chase aircraft. The 23-11/2
differed mainly in that all eight wing movable
surfaces were elevens. It was first flown by
1 Volk in late 1969. Later its starboard wing
upper surface was tufted, photographed by a
camera on the fin (later a second camera was
added looking back from behind the
canopy). Most of the second aircraft's flying
was done with a large LERX (leading-edge
root extension) giving increased area from
the new curved front portion. The 2I-11/2 carried out extensive aerodynamic and control
research before going to the WS Museum at
Monino. The 2I-11/1 was crashed on 28th July
1970 by an LII pilot performing unauthorised
low-level aerobatics. Mikoyan did not act on
the suggestion of the main 23-11 test pilots
that he should develop a fighter version.
MiG-211 (2I-11)
This designation applied to two aircraft ordered from Mikoyan to assist development of
the Tu-144 supersonic transport. They were
also called MiG-211 (I for Imitator), and Analog. Both aircraft were taken from the assembly line of the MiG-21S, but were powered by
a later engine, the R-13-300, rated at 6,490kg
(14,308 Ib). This engine could provide a large
airflow for blown flaps, but as the Tu-144 (and
thus the 2I-11) was a tailless delta no such
flaps could be fitted. The wing was totally
new, being of an ogival shape with the root
chord extending over almost the entire length
of the fuselage. The quite sharp leading edge
had the remarkable sweep angle of 78, before curving out to a sweep angle of 55 over
the outer wings. There was no droop (downward camber) along the leading edge. On the
112
Ye-8
So different in appearance as hardly to be
considered a MiG-21 version, these two aircraft were considered as prototypes of a possible improved fighter. They resulted from a
Kremlin decree of spring 1961 calling for 'a
version of the MiG-21 capable of destroying
hostile aircraft at night or in bad weather'.
This was intended to become the MiG-23. The
key feature was use of the Volkov KB's Sapfir
21 (Sapphire) radar. This was far too bulky to
fit inside any possible MiG-21 nosecone, and
the answer was to feed the engine by a completely new inlet under the fuselage. There
was an advantage in doing this in that the inlet
could be given variable geometry with mov-

Top and centre left: Two views of Ye-50-1.
Centre right: Ye-50-2 with rocket engine in action.
Bottom: Ye-50-3.
113
Left: Drawing of Ye-50A.

Below left: Ye-6/3T.
Below right: Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A).

MiG-21 PD (23-31).
Ye-6T/l (Ye-66A)
114
MIG-21PD (23-31)
MiG-21 I/I (Analog)
MiG-211/2
(underside view)
115
MiG-21 E X P E R I M E N T A LVERSIONS
116

Top: MiG-21 PD (23-31).
Centre left: MiG-211/1 with 44-00 (first prototype Tu-144).
Centre right: MiG-211/1.
Bottom: MiG-21 PD (23-31) at Domodedovo Air Parade, July 1967.
Photographs on this page:

Top left: MiG-211/2 with one wing tufted.
Top right: Ye-8/2.
Right: Model of Ye-8 interceptor project.
Ye-8
117
M i G - 2 1 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S / M 1 G - 2 3 P D , 23-01
Above left and right: Two views of Ye-8/2.

Left: Ye-8 cutaway.
1VKG-23PD, 23-01
Purpose: To evaluate a STOL fighter larger
than the MiG-21.
Design Bureau: OKB-155 of A I Mikoyan.
By the 1960s, though the MiG-21 was going
from strength to strength, the family of socalled heavy interceptors were being overtaken by the Ye-155 project (which became
the MiG-25), and, by now facing severe competition from Sukhoi, there was an urgent
need for a new tactical family more capable
than the MiG-21. The new engine KB of
K Khachaturov had produced an outstanding
new engine, the R-27-300 (as before, the suffix -300 signified Factory No 300), an afterburning turbojet with maximum thrust of
7,800kg (17,196 Ib). This was intermediate between MiG-21 engines and those of the big interceptors. Mikoyan began studying future
prospects for this engine in 1960. In 1964 he
obtained an order for the 23-01 with a delta
wing and a lift-engine bay, and in 1965 he was
ordered to build the competing 23-11 with no
118
lift engines but a variable-geometry 'swing

wing'. Even though the 23-01 was managed
by V A Mikoyan, second son of the General
Constructor's brother Anastas, President of
the Supreme Soviet, it was considered in the
OKB (correctly, as it turned out) to be a waste
of time. This was because of the American
fixation on the VG wing for the F-l 11. Despite
this, the 23-01 was the subject of meticulous
effort. The wing was like a scaled-up version
of the blown-flap MiG-21, almost as large as a
Ye-152, but with different main landing gear
geometry. The tailplanes were of a new design, with sharp taper (almost becoming
delta shape) and tips cropped at the Mach
angle. The fuselage was totally new, with a
nose designed to accommodate a powerful
radar fire-control system (not fitted), lateral
inlets with sliding centrebodies for the main
engine, and a lift-engine bay between the
main-engine ducts almost identical to that of
the 23-31. The two RD-36-35 lift turbojets had
a combined thrust of only 4,700kg (10,362 Ib),
and as this was a mere 29.5 per cent of the

gross weight the 23-01 was never flown slower than 150km/h (93mph). Thus, it was not fitted with reaction-control jets. The landing
gears were new, the large KT-133 mainwheels being housed upright in the sides of
the fuselage and the nose unit having twin
wheels, power steering and retracting not forwards but backwards. The KN-type seat was
installed in a cockpit similar to that of contemporary MiG-21s. Ostapenko began the
brief factory test programme on 3rd April
1967. He was soon joined by Fedotov, but
long before the 23-01 was completed Mikoyan had ceased to be interested in lift jets. With
one eye on disinformation the number 23
was painted on the fuselage, an inoperative
GSh-23L gun was fitted, and dummy Vympel
R-23R and R-23T missiles were hung under
the wings. The 23-01 was then briefly demonstrated at the big airshow at Moscow Domodyedovo on 9th July 1967.
M 1 G - 2 3 P D , 23-01
MJG-23PD, 23-01
Dimensions
Span
Length (excl PVD boom)
Wing area
7.72m
16.8m
40.0m2
25 ft m in
55 ft 1% in
430.6ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
12,020kg
16,000kg
26,500 Ib
35,273 Ib
Performance
Take-off run (light)
1 80-200 m
Landing run (with parabrake) 250 m
59I-656 ft
820ft
Two views of 23-01, with dummy R-23

guided missiles.
119
M i G 105-
MiG 105-11
Purpose: To investigate the low-speed
handling within the atmosphere of an orbital
shape.
By 1965 the Mikoyan OKB was deeply into the
technology of reusable aero-space vehicles.
Under 'oldest inhabitant' G Ye Lozino-Lozinskiy a shape was worked out called BOR
(from Russian for pilotless orbital rocket aircraft), and in turn this was the basis for the
manned Epos (an epic tale). The BOR test vehicles had been fired by rocket and recovered
by parachute, but a manned vehicle had to
land in the conventional way. It was considered prudent to build a manned test vehicle
to explore low-speed handling and landing.
Called 105-11, -12 and -13, only the first is believed to have flown. The OKB pilot was
Aviard Fastovets, and he began high-speed
taxi tests at Zhukovskii in September 1976. On
l l t h October 1976 he took off and climbed
straight ahead to 560m (1,837ft). He landed as
planned at an airfield about 19km (12 miles)
ahead. On 27th November 1977 he entered
105-11 slung under the Mikoyan OKB's Tu-95K
105-11, with skids
120
(previously used for cruise-missile tests) and

landed on an unpaved strip after release at
5,000m (16,400ft). The 105-11 made seven
further flights, the last in September 1978. It
was then retired to the Monino museum.
The 105-11 was almost the size of a MiG-21,
and was likewise a single-jet tailless delta.
The fuselage had a broad 'waverider' shape,
with a flat underside, and the cockpit at the
front was entered via a roof hatch. From the
sides projected small swept wings with
elevens, and there was a large fin and rudder.
The engine was an RD-36-35K turbojet derived from the previously used lift engines,
rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib). It was fed by a dorsal inlet with an upward-hinged door to fair
the engine in when in high-speed gliding
flight. Features of the eventual hypersonic
Epos included a flat unfaired tail end to the
broad fuselage, the upper surface comprising
large upward-hinged airbrakes, and a structure designed to accommodate severe thermal gradients, though the 105-11 was never
designed to fly faster than Mach 0.8. Early testing was done with rubber-tyred wheels on
the front two retractable legs and steel skis on
the rear pair (the OKB record that the runway

was lubricated by crushed melons). For the
air-drop tests all four legs had steel skids.
The brief flights of the 105-11 confirmed the
design of a manned aero-space vehicle, leading to the Buran (see later).
Dimensions
Span
6.7m
Length (excluding multi-vane
PVD instrument boom)
10.6m
Area of wing and
lifting body
24.0 nf
21 ft 11% in
34ft9 3 /Sin
258ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
3,500kg
500kg
4,220kg
7,716 Ib
1,102 Ib
9,300 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed (design)
(actually reached) about
Landing speed
Mach 0.8
800km/h
250-270 km/h
500 mph
155-168 mph
MiG 1 0 5 - 1 1 / MiG 1 . 4 4
Above left and right: Two views of 105-11.
Left: 105-11, with skids, preserved at Monino.
MiG 1.44
N-014 radar and various special test rigs.
Supervised by General Constructor Rostislav
Apollosovich Belyakov, detailed design proceeded under Chief Project Engineer Grigorii
Sedov, later succeeded by Yuriy Vorotnikov.
So great was the designers' faith in the 1.42
In 1983 the large and powerful MiG OKB that complete manufacturing documentation
began general parametric study of an MFI and software was completed at an early
(Mnogofunktsionahl'nyi Frontovoi Istrebitel, stage. Largely computerised manufacturing
multirole tactical fighter). This was to be a to- began at the Mikoyan experimental shop in
tally new aircraft as ahead of global competi- 1989. The first flight article, designated 1.44, is
tion as the MiG-29 had been. It was to be a simplified technology demonstrator to
larger than the MiG-29, to serve as a succes- prove the aerodynamics and flying qualities,
sor to the long-range MiG-31 and MiG-31M performance and propulsion. Compared with
interceptors, but also with the supermanoeu- the 1.42 it has an almost pure delta wing (invrability needed for close combat and the stead of a cranked leading edge) and a slightability to fly air-to-ground missions as well. In ly different air inlet system, and lacks the
1986 the Council of Ministers issued a direc- radar, mission avionics and internal weapons
tive ordering MiG, Sukhoi and Yakovlev to bay. By 1991 the 1.44 was structurally commake proposals for a 'fifth-generation' fighter plete, but was awaiting flight-cleared ento counter the threat posed by the USAF's Ad- gines, the agregat (accessory gearbox) and
vanced Tactical Fighter, which later led to the several other components. By this time colF-22A Raptor. The WS called the require- lapse of the Soviet Union had begun to cut off
ment I-90 (Istrebitel, fighter, for the 1990s). funding and seriously delay the programme.
The MiG project staff eventually settled on The original first-flight date of 1991 -92 was fortwo configurations, called Izdelye (product) gotten, but in December 1994 the 1.44 was
1.41 and 1.43. After prolonged discussion with completed and brought by road to the OKB's
the WS, features of both were combined in flight-test facility at the Zhukovskii NIl-WS
the 1.42. In late 1986 contracts were placed (air force flight-test institute). On 15th Defor a static-test airframe, a dynamic and fa- cember 1994 Roman Taskaev, then Chief Test
tigue-test airframe and two flight articles, as Pilot, began fast taxying trials. Though severwell as for the totally new AL-41F engine, al crucial elements had not been cleared for
Purpose: Technology test-bed to support

the 1.42 multirole fighter.
Design Bureau: ANPK (Aviatsionnyi
Nauchno-Promishlennyi Kompleks) MiG,
now the main design unit of RSK 'MiG'.
flight it was hoped to display the aircraft 'Blue

01' at the MAKS 1995 show in August 1995.
However, in May 1995 the hope of imminent
flight trials was dashed when ANPK MiG became part of MAPO, whose sole interest was
producing aircraft, such as the MiG-29 and
various other types (by no means all of MiG
design) to raise money. Things changed in
September 1997, when Sukhoi flew the rival
S-37 and Mikhail Korzhuyev was appointed
ANPK MiG's General Director. He was determined not to let this rival, and possible link to
the next generation, languish in its hangar any
longer. In December 1995 he got the WS to
declassify photographs taken on first rollout
in 1994. He then obtained permission for
guests, including Defence Minister Igor
Sergeyev, to walk round the 1.44 on 12th January 1999. On that occasion the aircraft rolled
out under its own power (with astonishing
quietness), Vladimir Gorboonov in the cockpit. At least one observer was impressed, Air
Force/Air-Defence Force C-in-C Col-Gen Anatoliy Kornookov saying 'This aircraft can do
everything you want it to'. Gorboonov began
the much-delayed flight-test programme on
15 February 2000, Korzhuyev saying 'We can
make the first five or six flights without external financing'.
The 1.44 is an extremely large single-seater,
designed to fly significantly faster than any aircraft it might encounter. Each wing is an al121
MiG 1.44
most pure cropped delta with a thickness/

chord ratio of about 3.5 per cent and leadingedge angle of about 48 (50 over the innermost section). On the leading edge are
almost full-span hinged flaps, while on the
trailing edge are large inboard and outboard
flaperons driven by power units in underwing
fairings. Unlike the MiG-29, the wing is not
blended into the fuselage, nor does it have a
LERX (leading-edge root extension). As far
forward as possible without interfering with
pilot view are enormous canard foreplanes,
driven over a large angular range. Each has
a sharp dogtooth, and a second smaller dogtooth due to the fact that these are 1.42 canards which do not perfectly match the large
bulging fixed roots of the 1.44. Like the MiG29 a structural beam projects behind each
wing to carry the outward-sloping upper fins,
but these beams are much further apart.
Thus, there is now a wide space between the
beam and the adjacent engine, and in this is
placed a secondary elevator, driven by a powerful actuator in a projecting fairing. Each fin
has an inset rudder, and under the beams are
vertical underpins with powered rudders. The
Mikoyan 1.44
122
basic aircraft is designed to be longitudinally

unstable and to fight at alphas (angles of attack) up to at least 100, which explains the
unprecedented 16 flight-control surfaces.
These are needed because, unlike the F-22
(say Mikoyan) the basic aircraft is designed
for close air combat. At high alphas powerful
lift is generated by the canards and by the flat
nose and huge flat underside of the fuselage.
Absence of LERXs means that, instead of
there being an inlet under each wing, there is
a single giant rectangular inlet a considerable
distance below the forward fuselage. In view
of the high design Mach number, the upper
wall is fully variable, the sides are cut sharply
back in side view, and the lower lip hinges
down in high-alpha flight. The ducts diverge
immediately to pass the nose gear, and then
rise over the weapons bay (in this prototype
occupied by instrumentation). The faces
of the engines cannot be seen externally.
The Saturn (Lyul'ka) AL-41F augmented turbofans are quite close together. Prototype
engines were made available because, unlike the S-37, the Mikoyan aircraft is the official choice as the next-generation fighter. Dry
and maximum ratings are approximately

12,000kg (26,455 Ib) and 20,000kg (44,090 Ib).
This engine, said General Designer Dr Viktor
Chepkin, was designed for 'the new tactical
fighters of the 1990s'. In 1993 he told co-author Gunston that the dry weight of the AL-41F
is 'about the same as that of the previous-generation engines with half the power', the actual T/W (thrust:weight ratio) being 11.1
compared with 8 for the AL-31F. On the public rollout of the 1.44 the engines were astonishingly quiet. By 1997 a total of 27 AL-41 and
AL-4 IF engines had run, and extensive flight
testing had taken place under a Tu-16 and in
the left position of a MiG-25. T/W ratio of the
clean aircraft is no less than about 1.33. The
nozzles are circular, with petals giving a variable convergent/divergent profile, their inner
faces being coated with a tan-coloured ceramic. Each nozzle can be vectored over limits of 15 vertically and 8 horizontally. In
the nose is a forked pair of pilot tubes. The
canopy swings up and back on four parallel
arms. Above the huge wing the fuselage has
visible waisting, and the broad but shallow
central spine (which can readily be enlarged
M i G 1.44
Mikoyan 1.44
if necessary) terminates in a capacious bay

for a braking parachute. The landing gears all
have levered trailing-link suspension, the single-wheel main units swinging forward into
compartments beside the 'weapons bay' and
the steerable twin-wheel nose unit retracting
backwards to lie between the ducts. There is
no problem with nosewheel slush entering
the ducts, the height of the landing gears
being dictated by landing attitude. Though
Blue 01 has the full Avionika KSU-I-42 digital
control system, which interlinks all the flight
controls and engine nozzles, it does not have
the intended Fazotron N-014 (beetle) multimode radar nor the aft-facing radar and countermeasures which in the 1.42 would occupy
the two tailcones. In an armed aircraft provision would be made for a heavy load of
weapons internally and on wing pylons (the
1.44 has hardpoints for six), and also for a
30mm gun. Dielectric flush antennas face in
all directions, though in the 1.44 many are
empty. The 1.44 lacks a RAM (radar-absorbent material) coating, but Mikoyan claim
the RCS (radar cross-section) of the MFI
would be 'similar to that of the smaller F-22'.
Had the MFI progressed according to its
original schedule it could well have been, if

not a world-beater, at least a formidable rival
to the much slower F-22. As it is, unless ANPK
MiG can find a rich foreign partner, it could
gradually be overtaken by foreign competitors. In any case, the days when MiGs sold
partly because of their low price are over.
Several analysts consider that a production
MFI would have to be priced at not less than
US$100 million. Indeed, Korzhuyev has gone
so far as to suggest that, instead of being one
step away from a production MFI, the 1.44
must be regarded as 'a flying laboratory to assist the development of a new fighter that will
be smaller and cheaper'.
Dimensions (estimated)
Span about
Length about
Wing /canard area about
15.5m
20.7m
120m 2
50 ft 1014 in
67 ft 11 in
1,292 ft2
Weights
Weight empty about
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
18 tonnes
27 tonnes
35 tonnes
39,683 Ib
59,500 Ib
77,160 Ib
2,765 km/h
1,718 mph (Mach 2.6)
l,800km/h
1,1 18 mph (Mach 1.69)
3,000 km
1,864 miles
Performance
Maximum speed
(high altitude)
Maximum cruising
speed (dry thrust)
not less than
123
MiG 1.44
Views of Mikoyan 1.44
124
M O L N I Y A B U R A N BTS-002
Molniya Buran BTS-002

Purpose: To develop the optimum Buran
landing profiles and techniques and train
Cosmonauts to fly the Buran spacecraft.
Design Bureau: NPO Molniya, Moscow,
General Director Gleb E Lozino-Lozinskii.
In 1976 the various A I Mikoyan spacecraft Spiral and Epos, and the 105-11 described
previously-were terminated and replaced by
the Buran (Snowstorm) programme. This
was assigned to NPO Energiya for the rocket
launch vehicle, with a total thrust at boost
separation of 4,037 tonnes (8,900,000 Ib), and
NPO Molniya for the reusable winged orbiter.
Lozino-Lozinskii, then 67, was transferred
from the MiG OKB to head the Molniya team.
In 1978 work began on a series of BTS (initials
from Russian for Big Transport Ship) projects
which eventually totalled eight, BTS-001
through BTS-006 plus BTS-011 and BTS-015.
Of these BTS-002 was a complete manned
air vehicle to explore the landing profiles
and handling, and - together with prolonged
training on various other aircraft, notably a
Tu-154LL - train the future crews. More than
7,000 atmospheric entries, glides and land-
ings had been simulated mathematically, and

in tunnel testing of models, but there was no
substitute for actually flying a Buran type vehicle. In summer 1984 BTS-002 was taken by
VM-T carrier aircraft to Jubilee airfield near
the Cosmodrome at Baikonur. Here it began
taxi testing on 29th December 1984.
Almost a year then elapsed before the first
flight, on 10th November 1985 This was a single take-off, wide circuit and landing, lasting
12 minutes. The Commander was Igor P Volk
and the pilot Rimantas A A Stankyavichus.
This crew flew many other missions, together with five other Cosmonauts. An important
flight was No 8, on 23rd December 1986,
when the Volk/Stankyavichus crew made the
first 'hands off automatic approach and landing from a height of 4km.
The last flight of BTS-002 took place on 15th
April 1988, just over seven months before the
first launch of a Buran in November 1988
made the 'atmospheric analog' redundant.
It made a final high-speed taxi test on 20th December 1989 and was then retired, but placed
on view to the public at MosAero-92 at
Zhukovskii.
The airframe of BTS-002 was geometrically

identical to the Buran, and it had the same
flight-control system and software. The four
large elevens, four sections of rudder (upper
and lower left and upper and lower right,
which split apart to act as airbrakes) and
door-type ventral airbrake were identical. So
were the twin-wheel landing gears, K-36L
seats and triple cruciform braking parachutes. On the other hand it was devoid of the
38,000 ceramic tiles and of virtually all the
complex on-board systems of the spacecraft.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
23.92 m
36.367 m
250 nf
78 ft 53/4 in
119 ft 33/ in
2,690ft 2
Weights
Empty, similar to Buran
82 tonnes
Loaded, less than the orbiter 96 tonnes
180,77615
211, 640 Ib
Performance
Normal maximum speed
on each flight
Normal peak of trajectory
Endurance
600 km/h
4,000 m
SOmin
373 mph
13,123ft
BTS-002
125
M O L N I Y A B U R A N BTS-002 / M O S K A L Y O V SAM-4 S I G M A
In particular, the propulsion systems were totally different. The orbiter had no main engines, relying totally on the mighty launch
rocket, but it did have two OMEs (orbital manoeuvring engines) and 42 small thrusters for
attitude control in space. The BTS-002 needed none of these, but instead had four Lyul'ka AL-21F-3 afterburning turbojets, each
rated at 11,200kg (24,800 Ib) thrust. These
were arranged one on each side of the rear
fuselage and one on each side at the base of
the fin. Of course it also needed a conventional kerosene fuel system. The engines
were used only for taxying to the runway and
for take-off and landing. The important part of
the flight had to be a glide, simulating the orbiter. Presence of the four air-breathing engines was said to have little effect upon the
vehicle's flight characteristics.
BTS-002 did everything it was designed to
do. Unfortunately, the main Buran programme eventually ran eight years later and
Two views of BTS-002.
overran its budget severely. Nevertheless, in

the opinion of Vyacheslav Filin, Deputy General Constructor at NPO Energiya, 'Had it not
been for existence of the Buran system there
would have been no Reykjavik meeting
where Reagan suggested sharing Star Wars
technology and which led to strategic arms
reduction'.

Purpose: To create a fighter with
unprecedented speed.
Design Bureau: Aleksandr Sergeyevich
Moskalyov, initially in Leningrad and later at
the VGU and Aircraft Factory No 18, Voronezh.
Moskalyov was a talented young designer/
pilot who achieved success with conventional aircraft, notably the SAM-5 light transport
(SAM stood for Samolyot [aeroplane] Aleksandr Moskalyov). He also persistently strove
to create highly unconventional aeroplanes
of tailless configurations. The first of the latter
series was the Sigma, named for the letter of
the Greek alphabet. He sketched this in 1933
whilst working at the Krasnyi Letchik (Red
flyer) factory in Leningrad, and worked on
rocket propulsion with V P Glushko in a serious endeavour to design an aeroplane to
reach l,000km/h (621 mph), and if possible to
exceed Mach 1 (the first project in the world
with this objective). When it was clear that a
rocket engine with adequate thrust was many
years distant, he recast the design with piston
engines. He was working on this when he left
Leningrad to be a lecturer at the VGU, the
State University at Voronezh. Under the guidance of A V Stolyarov he tested models in the
VGU's newly built high-speed tunnel. In
September 1934 he submitted his preliminary
report on SAM-4 to the GlavAviaProm (directorate of aircraft industries), whose Director,
11 Mashkevich, berated Moskalyov for sub126
mitting such 'unimaginable exotics'.

By 1933 Moskalyov had decided a suitable
configuration for a fast aircraft was an allwing layout with a 'Gothic delta' plan shape,
with trailing-edge elevens and Scheibe surfaces (fins and rudders on the wingtips). The
drawing shows two main wheels in the front
view, but this may be an error as Moskalyov
favoured a single centreline gear and, as
shown, skids on the wingtip fins. The drawing
shows a single propeller, but in fact Moskaly-
SAM-4 Sigma project
ov intended to use two Hispano-Suiza 12 Ybrs

engines, each of 860hp (these were later
made in the USSR under licence as the
M-100), driving separate contra-rotating propellers. The stillborn rocket version would
have had a prone pilot, but the piston-engined SAM-4 featured a conventional enclosed cockpit; the designer did not explain
why this was offset to port.
This proposal was altogether too 'far out'
for Mashkevich. No data survives.
M O S K A L Y O VS A M - 6
Moskalyov SAM-6
Purpose: To test an aeroplane with landing
gears on the centreline.
Design Bureau: S A Moskalyov at VGU and
GAZNolS.
Unaware of the fact that Bartini had already
flown the Stal'-6 (see page 16), Moskalyov decided in 1933 that it would be prudent to build
a simple low-powered aeroplane to investigate the landing gear he proposed to use for
his fighter, with a single mainwheel and skids
under the wingtips and tail. It was flown in
early 1934, but later in that year it was modified into the SAM-65/s.
The SAM-6 had a conventional tail, though
its moment arm was very short and the aircraft was dominated by its relatively huge
wing. The structure was wood, with fabriccovered control surfaces. The engine was a
three-cylinder M-23 rated at 65hp. Behind the
small fuel tank was the open cockpit. The
Scheibe fins were not fitted with rudders, and
were described by the designer as 'plates'.
Initial testing was done in early 1934 on
centreline tandem skis. Later the front ski
was replaced by a wheel on a sprung leg inside a trouser fairing. After rebuilding as the
SAM-66/s testing continued in 1935. This had
tandem cockpits with hinged hoods, and in
its final form a conventional landing gear was
fitted with two trousered mainwheels.
According to Shavrov 'experiments showed
that the centreline gear was quite practical'.
Moskalyov intended to use such landing gear
on the SAM-7, but ultimately decided not to
(see original drawing of that aircraft). The following specification refers to the SAM-6t/s.
SAM-66/s
Top right: SAM-6.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
8.0m
4.5m
12.0m2
26 ft 3 in
14 ft 9 in
129ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
380kg
50kg
500kg
838 Ib
HOlb
l,102lb
Performance
Speed at sea level
Service ceiling
Range
Landing speed
130km/h
3,000 m
200km
55km/h
81 mph
9,842ft
124 miles
34 mph
127
M O S K A L Y O V SAM-7 S I G M A

Purpose: To build a superior two-seat
fighter.
Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, at GAZ
No 18, Voronezh.
In 1934 Moskalyov was engaged in engineering later versions of TB-3 heavy bomber for
production. This enabled him to use one of
this bomber's engines and propellers to
power a fighter (though it was hardly ideal for
the purpose). Despite the fact that it was far
more complex than any of his previous aircraft, and also had advanced all-metal construction, the SAM-7 was completed in
October 1935. Pilots considered it potentially
dangerous, and factory testing was confined
to taxying at progressively higher speeds, ultimately making short hops in a straight line.
The SAM-7's configuration was described
by Shavrov as 'one of the world's most un-
orthodox', but in fact the wing was of fairly

normal design, with straight equal taper and
an aspect ratio of 4.6. Aerofoil profile was RII, and the thickness/chord ratio 12 per cent,
without twist. Apart from this the Sigma (the
designer's second use of this name) was indeed unconventional. There was no tail. On
the wingtips were Moskalyov's favoured
Scheibe fins, fitted with fabric-covered hornbalanced rudders. On the wing trailing edge
were outboard ailerons and inboard elevators which, when depressed to a slight angle,
were intended also to serve as slotted flaps
(though it is difficult to see how they could do
so without putting the aircraft into a dive). The
main landing gears had single struts, raked
forward, with a track of 2.8m (9ft 2in), and
were pivoted to the front spar to retract
inwards. The surviving drawing shows a tailwheel, but Shavrov says there was a non-cas-
toring tailskid. The structure was almost

wholly Dl duralumin, the maximum wing
skin thickness being 2.5mm. The nose inlet
served the carburettors. The 830hp M-34 engine drove a four-blade wooden propeller,
and was cooled by a surface evaporative
(steam) system similar to that of the Stal'-6.
For use at low speeds a normal honeycomb
radiator could be cranked down behind the
cockpit. The intended armament was two
ShKAS fixed above the engine, fired by the
pilot, and a second pair mounted on a pivot
and aimed by the rear gunner.
One cannot help being astonished that
Moskalyov was able to obtain funds to build
this aircraft, because there is no mention of
any official approval of the design (which
would almost certainly have been refused).
One feels sympathy with the test pilots, who
were probably right to be hesitant.
Original OKB
drawing of SAM-7.
Artist's impression of SAM-7.
Dimensions
Span (Shavrov)
(OKB drawing)
Length
Wing area
Weights
Empty
Loaded
31 ft 14 in
9.46 m
9.6 m to centrelines of fins
7.0 m
22 ft 11!* in
20.0 m2
215ft 2
940 kg
1,480kg
Performance
Max speed (estimated)
at sea level
435 knVh
at altitude
500km/h
Service ceiling (estimated) 9,200 m
Range (estimated)
800 km
The only measured figure was
the landing speed of
1 38 km/h
128
2,072 Ib
3,263 Ib
270 mph
311 mph
30,184ft
497 miles
86 mph
M O S K A L Y O V SAM-9 S T R E L A
Moskalyov SAM-9 Strela

Purpose: To test at modest speeds an
aircraft with a 'Gothic delta' wing of very low
aspect ratio.
Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, from 1936
head of his own OKB-31 at Voronezh.
Always eager to build his incredible SAM-4
dart-like fighter, Moskalyov was rebuffed in
these efforts until in 1936 US magazines featured futuristic fighters with low-aspect-ratio
wings, shaft drives and prone pilots. This
spurred GUAP to invite Moskalyov at least to
try out his radical ideas with a simple aircraft
with an engine of modest power. Following
tunnel tests by V P Gorskiy at CAHI (TsAGI),
the SAM-9 was built in 70 days, and flown on
skis in early 1937 by N S Rybko at Voronezh.
Following six flights by Rybko and A N
Gusarov, it was taken to Moscow and tested
in short hops by Rybko and A P Chernavskii,
finally making eight full flights in the hands of
Rybko. The aircraft was tricky, demanding an
angle of attack of 22 at take-off and landing,
and being unable to climb higher than 1,500m
(4,921ft). Despite this the NKAP (state commissariat for aviation industry) suggested that
Moskalyov should produce a fighter with a
0.975 aspect ratio wing, and this led to the RMl.SAM-29.
The SAM-9 Strela (Arrow) was made of
wood, with a brilliant surface finish, the
cable-operated rudder and elevons having
fabric covering. The thick aerofoil was of
RAF.38 profile, with local modifications. The
cockpit was placed between the two main
spars, with a hinged canopy. The engine was
a Renault MV-4 aircooled inverted 4-cylinder
rated at 140hp. The neat main landing gears
had pivoted rubber-sprung cantilever legs for
skis or wheels, and the tailskid did not castor.
The rudder and broad-chord elevons had trim
tabs.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
3.55m
6.15m
13.0m2
Ilft5 3 / 4 in
20 ft 2 in
140 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel and oil
Loaded
470kg
60+10 kg
630kg
l,0361b
132+22 Ib
l,3891b
Performance
Maximum speed actually
reached, at sea level
Altitude reached
Take-off run about
Landing speed/
run
310km/h
1,500m
200m
102km/h
100m
195 mph
4,921 ft
656ft
63 mph
328ft
SAM-9 Strela
Without the support of CAHI (TsAGI) and

the (mistaken) belief that such aircraft were
planned in the USA, this project would probably have got nowhere. As it was, the SAM-9
merely showed that such aircraft could fly,
but with difficulty. In a recent display of models of Moskalyov aircraft the SAM-9 was depicted entirely doped red except for the
propeller blades, and with a placard giving
speed and altitude as 340km/h and 3,400m.
129
M O S K A L Y O V SAM-1 3
Moskalyov SAM-13
Purpose: To design a small fighter with
'push/pull' propulsion.
Design Bureau: A S Moskalyov, OKB -31 at
Voronezh.
This small fighter was unconventional in layout, but used an ordinary wing, and had nothing to do with the designer's previous fighter
concepts. According to Shavrov 'Fokker designed an almost exact copy of the SAM-13,
known as the D.23...' In fact it was the other
way about, because Moskalyov began this design in 1938, immediately after the D.23 had
been exhibited at the Paris Salon. The single
prototype was first flown by N D Fikson in late
1940, 18 months after the Dutch fighter, and
proved difficult to handle, to need inordinately long runs to take off and land, and to have
a sluggish climb and poor ceiling. Its designer
worked round the clock to improve it, and by
spring 1941 it was undergoing LII testing in

the hands of Mark L Gallai. Apart from the fact
the nose gear never did retract fully, it was by
this time promising, and it was entered for the
summer high-speed race, but the German invasion on 22nd June stopped everything. The
No 31 OKB was evacuated, but this aircraft
had to be left behind so it was destroyed. The
OKB documents have not been found.
The SAM-13 was powered by two 220hp
Renault MV-6 inverted six-cylinder aircooled
engines driving 2.2m (7ft 21/2in) two-blade
variable-pitch propellers. Between them was
the pilot, and Moskalyov fitted the rear propeller with a rapid-acting brake to make it
safer for the pilot to bail out. The small twospar wing was sharply tapered, and was fitted
with split flaps inboard of the booms carrying
the single-fin tail. Apart from welded steeltube engine mounts, the structure was woodSAM-13 in erecting
shop, dated
20th February 1940
en, with polished doped ply skin. The main

landing gears retracted inwards and the nose
unit aft. One drawing shows the nose unit
(which had a rubber shimmy damper) to
have had a levered-suspension arm for the
axle. The intended armament, never fitted,
comprised four 7.62mm ShKAS, two above
the front engine and two at the extremities of
the wing centre section.
Moskalyov knew that the MV-6 was available for licence-production in the USSR, and
thought this aircraft might make good use of
some. Even had the programme continued
without interruption it is hard to envisage the
SAM-13 being adopted by the WS.
Dimensions (note: Shavrov's dimensions are incorrect)

Span
7.3m
23ftll^in
Length
7.85m
25 ft 9 in
9.0m'
Wing area
96.9ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
754kg
1,183kg
Performance
Max speed (design figures)
at sea level
463km/h
at 4,000m (13,123 ft)
680km/h
10,000m
Service ceiling (estimate)
850 miles
Range (estimate)
125km/h
Landing speed
SAM-13
130
l,6621b
2,608 Ib
288 mph
423 mph
32,808 ft
528 miles
78 mph
M O S K A L Y O V S A M - 2 9 , R M - 1 / M Y A S I S H C H E V M-50 A N D M - 5 2
Moskalyov SAM-29, RM-1

Purpose: To renew attempt to build a
rocket-engined interceptor.
Design bureau: A S Moskalyov, No 31.
During the Great Patriotic War practical rocket engines for manned aircraft became available. Moskalyov never forgot that he had
been invited by the NKAP to build a fighter
with the so-called Gothic delta wing of 0.95
aspect ratio. In 1944, despite much other
work, he collaborated with L S Dushkin in
planning what was to be the ultimate Strela
fighter. This time most of the technology existed, and S P Korolyov lent his support, but
once the War was over such a project was
judged to be futuristic and unnecessary.
Moskalyov's OKB was closed in January 1946,
and he returned to lecturing, but he continued to study this project for two further years.
The final SAM, also called Raketnyi Moskalyov, would have followed the usual Strela
form in having a Gothic delta wing and no
horizontal tail. The wing was fitted with
elevens and blended into a needle-nosed
fuselage carrying a large fin and rudder. The

Dushkin RD-2M-3V engine, rated at 2,000kg
(4,409 Ib) thrust at sea level and much more
at high altitude, was installed at the rear and
fed with propellants from tanks filling most of
the airframe. Two cannon would have been
installed beside the retracted nose landing
gear.
This was yet another of this designer's near
misses, all of which stemmed from his abundance of enthusiasm.
No data survives.
Two sketches, one called SAM-29,

the other RM-1.
Myasishchev M-50 and M-52

Purpose: To design a long-range supersonic
bomber.
Design Bureau: OKB-23 of Vladimir
Mikhailovich Myasishchev, Moscow.
In 1955, when the Myasishchev OKB was still
striving to develop the huge 3M subsonic
bomber, this design bureau was assigned the
additional and much more difficult task of
creating a strategic bomber able to make
dash attacks at supersonic speed. The need
for this had been spurred by the threat of the
USAF Weapon System 110, which materialised as the XB-70. The US bomber was designed for Mach 3, but in 1955 this was
considered an impossible objective for the
Soviet Union. From the outset it was recognized that there could be no question of competing prototypes from different design
teams. Even though the Myasishchev OKB
was already heavily loaded with completing
development of the huge M-4 strategic
bomber and redesigning this into the 3M production version, this was the chosen design
bureau. In partnership with CAHI (TsAGI),
wind tunnels were built for Mach 0.93,3.0 and
6.0. The two partners analysed more than 30
possible configurations, initially in the

Izdeliye (product) '30' family (VM-32, tailless
VM-33 and VM-34). The basic requirement
was finally agreed to specify a combat radius
not less than 3,000km (1,864 miles) and if
possible much more, combined with a dash
speed (with engine afterburners in use) of
Mach 2. This demanded an upgraded aircraft,
and the result was the '50' series, starting with
the M-50. Under chief designer Georgi
Nazarov this was quickly accepted, and the
initial programme comprised a static-test
specimen and two flight articles, comprising
one M-50 followed by an M-52. OKB pilots
N I Goryainov and A S Lipko flew the M-50 on
27th October 1959. Modified with afterburning inboard engines, it continued testing in
late 1960, but was by this time judged to be of
limited value, and to be consuming funds
needed for ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic
missiles) and space projects. The OKB-23
was closed, and its personnel were transferred to V N Chelomey to work on ICBMs
and spacecraft. Myasishchev was appointed
Director of CAHI. To the protestations of
some, the virtually complete M-52 was
scrapped, and six later 50-series projects re-
mained on the drawing board. However, for

propaganda purposes the M-50 was kept airworthy and made an impressive but rather
smoky flypast at the Aviation Day parade at
Moscow Tushino on 9th July 1961, naturally
causing intense interest in the West. After
being photographed with different paint
schemes, and the successive radio callsigns
022, 023,12 and 05, it was parked in the nosehigh take-off attitude at Monino.
Apart from the totally different wing, in
overall configuration, size and weight the
M-50 exactly followed the M-4 and 3M family.
Despite this every part was totally new, to the
last tyre and hydraulic pump. The wing was of
pure delta shape, with CAHI R-II profile of
only 3.5 to 3.7 per cent thickness, and with a
leading-edge angle of 50 from the root to the
inboard engines at 55 per cent semi-span,
and 41 30' from there to the tip. The tip was
cropped to provide mountings for the outboard engines. The leading edge was cambered but fixed, while the trailing edge
carried rectangular double-slotted flaps
and tapered outboard flaperons. At the time
this was by far the largest supersonic wing
ever flown. Structurally it was based on a
131
M Y A S I S H C H E V M-50 A N D M-52
rectangular grid with four transverse spars
and seven forged ribs on each side, the skin
being formed by forged and machined panels. The enormous fuselage was of almost
perfect streamline form, which like the wing
was skinned with forged and machined panels. Only a small two-bay section in the nose
formed the pressure cabin for the pilot and
navigator seated in tandem downward-ejecting seats. These were lowered on cables for
the crew to be strapped in at ground level,
then winching themselves into place. There
was neither a fin nor fixed tailplanes. Instead
the tail comprised three surfaces, each with a
forward-projecting anti-flutter weight and
driven by a quadruple power unit in the twin
duplex hydraulic systems. A back-up mechanical control was provided, with rods and
levers, but it was expected that this would
later be removed. Several possible engines
were studied, the finalists being VADobrynin's VD-10 and P F Zubts' 16-17, which
was replaced by the 17-18. Construction of
the aircraft outpaced both, and in the end the
M-50 had to be powered by two Dobrynin
VD-7 turbojets on the underwing pylons and
two more on the wingtips. As these were temporary they were installed in simple nacelles
with plain fixed-geometry inlets. Rated at
9,750kg (21,4951b), these were basically the
same engines as those of the 3M. Likewise
the main landing gears appeared to be similar to those of the previous bomber, but in fact
they were totally new. One of the basic design
problems was that the weapons bay had to be
long enough to carry the llm (36ft) M-61
cruise missile internally. This forced the rear
truck, bearing 63 per cent of the weight, to be
quite near the tail, reducing the effective moM-50 in final form
ment arm of the tailplanes and threatening to

make it impossible for the pilot to rotate the
aircraft on take-off. One answer would have
been to use enormous tailplanes, greatly increasing drag, but a better solution was to do
what the OKB had pioneered with the M-4
and 3M and equip the steerable front fourwheel landing gear with a double-extension
hydraulic strut. Triggered by the airspeed
reaching 300km/h (186mph), this forcibly rotated the aircraft 10 nose-up. Another unique
feature was that each main gear incorporated
a unique steel-shod shoe which, after landing, was hydraulically forced down on to the
runway, creating a shower of sparks but producing powerful deceleration, even on snow.
For stability on the ground twin-wheel tip protection gears were fitted, retracting forwards
immediately inboard of the wingtip engines.
All fuel was housed in the fuselage, and yet
another unique feature was that to cancel out
the powerful change in longitudinal trim
caused by the transonic acceleration to supersonic flight fuel was rapidly pumped from
Nol tank behind the pressure cabin to No 8
tank in the extreme tail (and pumped back on
deceleration to subsonic flight). Over 10 years
later the same idea, credited by Myasishchev
to L Minkin, was used on Concorde. Flight
testing of the M-50 at Zhukovskii was remarkably rapid, though the aircraft proved stubbornly subsonic, stopping at Mach 0.99 even
in a shallow dive at full power. In early 1960
the M-50 was modified with afterburning
VD-7M engines with a maximum rating of
16,000kg (35,275 Ib) on the inboard pylons
and derated VD-7B engines rated at 9,500kg
(20,944 Ib) on the wingtips. This was considered to offer the best compromise between
available thrust, mission radius and propulsion reliability. The engine installations were
redesigned, all four having large secondary
cooling airflows served by projecting ram inlets above the nacelle. The outer engines
were mounted on extensions to the wing
housing new wingtip landing gears which retracted backwards.
The M-52 was under construction from November 1958 and differed in many respects. It
was to be powered by four Zubts 17-18 bypass
engines each rated at 17,700kg (39,021 Ib). All
four were served by efficient variable multishock inlets. The inner engines were 'set at
an angle in relation to the chord line' and the
outers were attached to larger pylons with
forward sweep. The nose was redesigned
and housed navigation/bombing radar, the
crew sat side-by-side, a small horizontal surface was added on top of the rudder, a retractable flight-refuelling probe was added,
the interior was rearranged, a remotely controlled barbette was fitted in the tail with twin
GSh-23 guns, and provision was made to
carry one M-61 internally or four Kh-22 cruise
missiles scabbed on semi-externally in pairs
conforming to the Area Rule. This aircraft was
structurally complete in 1960 but when OKB23 was closed it was scrapped.
The M-50 was an extraordinary example of
an aircraft which physically and financially
was on a huge scale yet which had very limited military value. Not least of the remarkable
features of this programme was its relative
freedom from technical troubles, even
though virtually every part was totally new.
Dimensions (M-50 in 1960)

Span (over outer engines) 35. 1 m
Length
57.48 m
Wing area
290.6 m2
115ft2in
188 ft 7 in
3,128ft 2
Weights
Empty
Normal loaded
1 69,290 Ib
447,531 Ib
76,790 kg
203,000kg
Performance
Max speed (estimated)
1 ,950 km/h
Cruising spee
800 km/h
Service ceiling
16,500m
Practical range (estimated) 7,400 km
Landing speed (lightweight) 215 km/h
132
1,212 mph (Mach 1.84)

497 mph
54,134ft
4,598 miles
133.6 mph
M Y A S I S H C H E V M-50 A N D M-52
Four views of M-50 prototype at different periods.
M-52
133
M Y A S I S H C H E V 3M-T A N D VM-T A T L A N T
Myasishchev 3M-T and VM-T Atlant

Purpose: To transport outsize cargoes.
Design Bureau: EMZ (Eksperimental'nyi
Mashinostroitel'nyi Zavod, experimental
engineering works) named for
V M Myasishchev.
VM-T No 2 (01502) with Buran
134
After directing CAHI (TsAGI) from 1960, Myasishchev returned to OKB No 23 in early 1978
in order to study how a 3M strategic bomber
might be modified to convey large space
launchers and similar payloads. In particular
an aircraft was needed to transport to the

Baikonur launch site four kinds of load: the
nose of the Energiya launcher; the second
portion of Energiya; the Energiya tank; and
the Buran spacecraft, with vertical tail and
engines removed. These loads typically
weighed 40 tonnes (88,183 Ib) and had a
diameter of 8m (26ft). Myasishchev had previously calculated that such loads could be
flown mounted above a modified 3M
bomber. He died on 14th October 1978, the
programme being continued by V Fedotov.
While design went ahead, three 3MN-II
tanker aircraft were taken to SibNIA (the
Siberian State Research Instiutute named for
SAChaplygin) and put through a detailed
structural audit preparatory to grafting on a
new rear fuselage and tail, and mountings for
the external payload. The modified aircraft
were designated 3M-T. All were rebuilt with
zero-life airframes and new engines, but initially without payload attachments. One was
static-tested at CAHI while the other two were
completed and flown, tne first on 29th April
1981. After a brief flight-test programme they
were equipped to carry pick-a-back payloads, and in Myasishchev's honour redesignated VM-T Atlant. The first flight with a
payload was made by AKucherenko and
crew on 6th January 1982. Subsequently the
two Atlant aircraft carried more than 150 payloads to Baikonur.
The most obvious modification of these aircraft was that the rear fuselage was replaced
by a new structure 7m (23ft) longer and with
an upward tilt, carrying a completely new tail.
This comprised modified tailplanes and elevators with pronounced dihedral carrying inward-sloping fins and rudders of almost
perfectly rectangular shape, with increased
total area and outside the turbulent wake
from any of the envisaged payloads. Less obvious was the fact that, even though the maximum take-off weight was less than that for
the bomber versions, the airframe was
strengthened throughout. As time between
overhauls was not of great importance the
original four VD-7B engines were replaced by
the VD-7M. These were RD-7M-2 engines,
originally built for the Tu-22 supersonic
bomber with afterburners and variable nozzles, which had had the afterburner replaced
by a plain jetpipe and fixed-area nozzle.
Thrust was 11,000kg (24,250 Ib). These were
in turn replaced by the VD-7D, rated at
10,750kg (23,700 Ib). Each aircraft was fitted
with 14 attachment points above the fuselage
and on lateral rear-fuselage blisters for the
four different kinds of supporting structure,
each being specially tailored to its payload.
They were also equipped with a modified
M Y A S I S H C H E V 3M-T A N D VM-T A T L A N T
flight-control and autopilot system. The forward fuselage was furnished with work stations for a crew of six. The aircraft were given
civilian paint schemes, one being registered
RF-01502 and the other being RF-01402 and
fitted with a flight-refuelling probe. To support
their missions the PKU-50 loading and un-
loading facility was constructed at spacecraft

factories, including NPO Energiya at Moscow
Khimki, and at the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
These incorporated a giant gantry for carefully placing the payloads on the carrier aircraft.
Despite the turbulent aerodynamics downstream of the external payloads, this dramat-
ic reconstruction proved completely successful. In the USA a 747 was used to airlift Shuttle
Orbiters, but no other aircraft could have carried the sections of Energiya.
Three views of VM-T Nol (01402), two showing Energiya main tanks.
Below: VM-T No 2 with Energiya second-stage tank.
Dimensions
Span
Length (no probe)
Wing area
53.16m
58.7m
351.78m2
174 ft 5 in
192 ft 7 in
3,787 ft2
Weights
Empty
Maximum payload
Maximum take-off
81,200kg
50 tonnes
192,000kg
179,01 2 Ib
11 0,229 Ib
423,280 Ib
Performance
540 km/h
Cruising speed
Cruise altitude typically
8,500 m
Range (maximum fuel)
3,000 km
compared with 10,950 km for the 3MN.
290 knots, 335.5 mph

27,887 ft
1,864 miles
VM-T with Energiya payloads
135
M Y A S I S H C H E V M-17 STRATOSFERA
Myasishchev M-17 Stratosfera

Purpose: To fly reconnaissance missions at
very high altitude.
Design Bureau: EMZ named for
V M Myasishchev.
Though not an experimental aircraft, the M-17
qualifies for this book because of its nature,
its ancestry, and the fact that it was the basis
for the M-55 research aircraft. The concept of
manned reconnaissance aircraft penetrating
hostile airspace at extreme altitude was com-
M-17Chaika
M-l 7 prototype
136
mon in the Second World War, and in the

Cold War reached a flash point on 1st May
1960 when the U-2 of F G Powers, a CIA pilot,
was shot down over Sverdlovsk. One of the
American alternatives studied and then actually used was unmanned balloons launched
in such a way that prevailing winds would
carry them across Soviet territory. They could
change altitude, and could carry not only reconnaissance systems but also explosive
charges. This threat could have been serious,
and the PVO (air defence forces) found it difficult to counter. Though still at CAHI, Myasishchev was made head of a secret EMZ
tasked with Subject 34, a high-altitude balloon destroyer. Called Chaika (Gull) from its
inverted-gull wing, it was to be powered by a
single Kolesov RD-36-52 turbojet of 12,000kg
(26,4551b) thrust. To reduce jetpipe length
the tail was carried on twin booms. In the
nose was to be radar and the highly pressurized cockpit, while between the engine inlet
ducts was a remotely controlled turret housing a twin-barrel GSh-23 gun. Secretly built at
Kumertau helicopter plant in Bashkirya, the
Chaika was first flown in December 1978 by
K V Chernobrovkin. He had been engaged in
taxi tests, and had not meant to take off but in
a snowstorm became airborne to avoid hitting the wall of snow on the right side of the
runway. In zero visibility he hit a hillside. The
programme was relocated at Smolensk,
where the second aircraft was constructed to
a modified design, designated M-l 7. The first,
No 17401, was first flown by E VChePtsov at
Zhukovskii on 26th May 1982. It achieved a
lift/drag ratio of 30, and between March and
May 1990 set 25 international speed/climb/
height records. In 1992 it investigated the
'hole' in the ozone layer over the Antarctic.
The second M-17, No 17103, was equipped
with a different suite of sensors. From the M17 was derived the M-55 Geofizka described
next.
M Y A S I S H C H E V M-17 STRATOSFERA
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
40.32 m
22.27 m
137.7m 2
132ft3Kin
73 ft Kin
1,482ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
Maximum take-off
11,995kg
18,400kg
1 9,950 kg
26,444 Ib
40,564 Ib
43,981 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
at 5 km (16,404 ft)
332km/h
at 20 km (65,617 ft) rising to 743 km/h
Service ceiling from max take-off weight,
reached in 35 min
21 ,550 m
Range at 20 km at Mach 0.7
with 5 % reserve
1,315km
Take-off run
at 18,400 kg (40,56415)
340m
Landing speed/run
1 88 km/h
at 16,300 kg (35,935 Ib)
950m
206 mph
462 mph
70,700 ft
81 7 miles
1,115ft
117 mph
3,117ft
The M-17 had an all-metal stressed-skin

structure designed to the low factor of 2. The
remarkable wing had an aerofoil of P-173-9
profile and aspect ratio of 11.9, and on the
ground it sagged to an anhedral of-2 30'. The
original wing had 16 sections of Fowler flap
and short ailerons at the tips, but it was redesigned to have a kinked trailing edge with
simplified flaps and longer-span two-part
ailerons. Large areas of wing and tail were
skinned with honeycomb panels. Flight controls were manually operated, in conjunction
with a PK-17 autopilot. The tricycle landing
gears retracted hydraulically, the 210kg/cm2
(3,000 lb/in2) system also operating other ser-
M-17No2
vices including three airbrakes above each

wing. The engine was an RD-36-51V, with a
take-off rating of 12,000kg (26,455 Ib) and
nominal thrust of half this value. Cruise thrust
at 21,000m (68,898ft) was 600kg (1,32315). T8V kerosene was housed in two 2,650 litre
main tanks, two 1,550 litre reserve tanks and
a 1,600 litre collector tank, a total of 10,000
litres (2,200 Imperial gallons). The pressurized and air-conditioned cockpit housed a
very fully equipped K-36L seat, and among

other equipment the pilot wore a VKK-6D suit
and VK-3M ventilated suit, and a ZSh-3M protective helmet and KM-32 mask overlain by a
GSh-6A pressurized helmet. Avionics were
extremely comprehensive.
The M-17 fulfilled all its design objectives.
The successive changes in both mission and
aircraft design were caused solely by political
factors.
M-17 production
137
M Y A S I S H C H E V M-55 G E O F I Z K A
Myasishchev M-55 Geofizka

Purpose: To study the ozone layer and
perform many other surveillance tasks.
Design Bureau: EMZ named for V M
Myasishchev, General Designer V K Novikov.
The M-l 7 proved so successful in its basically
politico-military role that it was decided in
1985 to produce a derived aircraft specifically
tailored to Earth environmental studies. The
first M-55, No 01552, was first flown on 16th
August 1988, the pilot being Nil Merited Pilot
Eduard V Chel'tsov who had carried out the
initial testing of the M-l 7. Three further examples were built, Nos 55203/4/5. Further singleseaters, plus the M-55UTS dual trainer, the
Geofizka-2 two-seat research aircraft and
other derived versions, have been shelved
through lack of funds.
Structurally the M-55 was designed to a
load factor increased from 2 to 5. This resulted in a new wing which instead of having
left/right panels joined on the centre line has
inner and outer panels joined to a centre section. Aspect ratio is reduced to 10.7, and aerodynamically the wing retains the P-173-9
profile but has redesigned flaps, ailerons and
upper-surface airbrakes. The horizontal tail is
modified, with full-span elevator tabs and
square tips. The fuel capacity is increased to
M-55
138
MYASISHCHEV M-55 GEOFIZKA / NIAI LK-1

10,375 litres (2,282 Imperial gallons), and
range/endurance was further increased by
changing to a pair of P A Solov'yov D-30-10V
turbofans each rated at 9,500kg (20,944 Ib)
take-off thrust, and with a combined cruise
thrust at 21km (68,898ft) of 670kg (l,4771b).
Apart from the landing gear the aircraft was
almost totally redesigned, the front of the nacelle being much deeper and more capacious, the engine bays being lengthened, and
the flight controls being operated by a dualchannel digital system with manual reversion. In standard form the M-55 carries a
payload of up to 1.5 tonnes (3,307 Ib), typically comprising a Radius scanning radiometer
with swath width of 20km (12.4 miles), a
choice of IR linescanners with swath width of

25km (15.5 miles), an Argos optical scanner
with swath width of 28km (17.4 miles), an
A-84 optical camera with swath width of
120km (74.6 miles) and a choice of SLARs
(sideways-looking airborne radars) with maximum swath width of 50km (starting at 30km
and extending to 80km) on each side. Coverage of 100,000km2 (38,610 square miles) per
hour is matched to an instrumentation transmission rate of 16 Mbits per second.
The EMZ have created a versatile research
and geophysical aircraft which is being promoted for such varied tasks as search/rescue,
mapping, ozone studies, hailstorm prevention and agricultural monitoring.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
37.46m
22.867 m
131.6m2
122 ft 10% in
75 ft M in
1,417ft 2
Weights
Empty
Maximum take off weight
13,995kg
23,800kg
30,853 Ib
52,469 Ib
its extraordinary layout, with the wing blended into the fuselage. The prototype, with civil
registration LI 300, was first flown by
A Ya Ivanov in May 1933. Despite the fact that
the pilot had no view except over a sector of
about 100 to the left side, Ivanov's opinion
was favourable because the aircraft handled
well. After four months of testing in Leningrad
the LK-1 was flown to Moscow. There it was
tested by the Nil, as a result of which a small
series of 20 were built. These saw Aeroflot

service in the Arctic, on occasion being fitted
with skis or floats.
LK stood for Leningradskii Kombinat, and
the prototype was also unofficially called Fanera-2 (Plywood 2). Though basically a simple
all-wood machine, powered by a l00hp M-l 1
engine, it strove to gain in lift/drag ratio by
blending the wing root into the fuselage. Indeed, it could be considered as an all-wing
Performance
Maximum speed
at 5 km (16,404 ft)
332 km/h
at 20 km (65,61 7 ft) rising to 750 km/h
Practical ceiling 2 1,850m in 35 min
Endurance
at practical ceiling
2hrs 14 min
at a cruise height of 1 7 km 6 hrs 30 min
Max range on direct flight 4,965km
Take-off/landing
Similar to M- 17.
206 mph
466 mph
(71,686ft)
(55,774ft)
3,085 miles
NIAI LK-1
Purpose: To build a more efficient light
transport.
Design Bureau: NIAI, initials from Scientific
Research Aero Institute, Leningrad, formed
by the LIIPS, the Leningrad Institute for
Aerial Communication; designers
AI Lisichkin and V F Rentel.
Even though it went into production and
everyday use, this aircraft qualifies by virtue of
LK-1 series aircraft
139
NIAI LK-1 / NIAI RK, LIG-7
aircraft with the nose engine and rear fuselage attached to the thickened centre wing.
This central portion contained two pairs of
seats, that on the left in front being for the
pilot. The entire front and top of this cabin
was skinned in transparent panels, those
along the sides sloping at 60, two of them
forming doors. The prototype had a ringcowled engine, spatted main wheels and a
broad but squat fin and rudder. Production
aircraft had no cowling or spats, but had a redesigned wing root and a narrower rear fuselage and completely redesigned vertical tail.
Several designers attempted a cabin of this
kind, but all the others were very large air-
craft. In fact whether a blended wing/body

aircraft can be hyper-efficient is doubtful,
though the LK-1 did have useful STOL (short
take-off and landing) qualities.
Dimensions (production aircraft)

Span
12.47m
Length
8.87m
Wing area
27.6m2
40ft 11 in
29 ft Win
297 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded
746kg
170kg
1,160kg
1,645 Ib
375 Ib
2,557 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Time to climb 1 km
Service ceiling
Range
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run
154km/h
lOmin
3,370m
850km
200m
65km/h
120m
96 mph
(3,281 ft)
11,000ft
528 miles
656ft
40 mph
394ft
NIAI RK, LIG-7

Purpose: To evaluate an aeroplane with a
wing of variable area.
Design Bureau: NIAI, Leningrad.
In 1936 Grigorii (according to Shavrov, Georgii)
Ivanovich Bakshayev, aged 18, joined the UK
GVF, the instructional combine of the civil air
fleet. He was eager to test his belief that a superior aeroplane could be created by arranging for it to have a large wing for take-off and
landing and a smaller wing for cruise. As the
UK GVF was in Leningrad the NIAI adopted
the idea. Called RK (Razdvizhnoye Krylo, extending wing), and also LIG-7 because it was
the seventh project of the Leningrad Institute
GVF, the aircraft was built quickly and was
first flown in August 1937. Remarkably, the
RK, LIG-7
140
system worked smoothly and reliably (better

in the air than on the ground), and it led to the
even more unconventional RK-I fighter.
Apart from the wing the RK was a simple
monoplane of mixed construction, with enclosed cockpits for a pilot and observer and
powered by an uncowled l00hp M-l 1 engine
driving a laminated-wood propeller. It had a
two-spar wing of constant narrow-chord M-6
profile, braced by pairs of wires above and
below to the top of the pilot's hood and to a
pyramid truss under the fuselage. At the root
was what looked like the root section of a
much larger wing, with CAHI (TsAGI)-846
aerofoil profile, but with a span of only 50cm
(1ft 7%in). Inside this, nestling tightly like a set
of Russian Matroshka dolls, were five further
plywood wing sections each of 50cm span.

The observer could crank these out by a cable
mechanism, each adding 45cm (1ft 5%in) to
the span of the large-chord region. It took 30
to 40 seconds to crank the telescopic sections
out to their full extent, covering 60 per cent of
the semi-span, and 25 to 30 seconds to wind
them back.
Seemingly a 'crackpot' idea, the RK performed even better than prediction. It is difficult to account for the fact that it got nowhere.
The answer must be that it introduced an element of complexity and possible serious
danger, sufficient to dissuade any later designer from following suit.
N I A I RK, LIG-7 / RK-I, RK-800

Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area (minimum)
(maximum)
11.3m
7.34m
16.56m2
23.85 nf
37 ft % in
24 ft 1 in
178.25ft2
256.72 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
667kg
897kg
l,4701b
l,9781b
156km/h
7.5 min
14.5min
2,900m
250m
105km/h
210m
97 mph
3,281 ft
6,561 ft
9,514ft
820ft
65 mph
689ft
143km/h
3,100m
135m
68km/h
110m
89 mph
10,171 ft
443ft
42 mph
361ft
Performance (small wing)

Maximum speed
Time to climb 1,000m
to 2,000m
Service ceiling
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run
Performance (large wing)
Maximum speed
Service ceiling
Take-off run
Landing speed/
run (both large wing)
Two views of RK, LIG-7.
NIAI RK-I, RK-800

Purpose: To create a fighter with variable
wing area.
Design Bureau: NIAI, Leningrad.
From the start of his telescopic-wing studies
young Bakshayev had really been thinking
about fighters. He had regarded the RK merely as a preliminary proof-of-concept exercise.
He calculated that a fighter able to retract
most of its wing area and powered by the M105 engine ought to be able to reach a worldrecord 800km/h (497mph), overlooking the
fact that a fighter with a relatively small wing
would have poor combat manoeuvrability.
Indeed, as described below, he found a way
to make the relative difference between the
small and large wings even greater than in the
RK, the ratio of areas being 2.35:1. In October
1938 he submitted a preliminary design
sketch for the RK-I (Russian abbreviation for
extending-wing fighter). After much argument the concept was accepted by CAHI
(TsAGI) and the WS. A one-fifth-scale model
was tested in a CAHI (TsAGI) tunnel from January 1939, but it was difficult to find an industrial base capable of building even the
prototype. Worse, the RK-I attracted the attention of Stalin, who took a keen interest in
combat aircraft. Excited, he demanded that
this aircraft should use the M-106 engine, the
most powerful then on bench test. Under
some difficulty a prototype RK-I was completed in early 1940, but the M-106 engine
(later designated VK-106) was still far from
ready. The aircraft could have flown with the
M-105, but nobody dared to fit anything but
the engine decreed by Stalin. In order to do at
least some testing a full-scale model was constructed with the nose faired off, fixed landing
gears and a projecting canopy, with no attempt to simulate armament or the radiator
ducts in the rear fuselage. This mock-up was
then tested in the CAHI (TsAGI) full-scale tunnel. The resulting test report was generally
favourable, but noted that sealing between
the telescopic wing sections was inadequate.
The CAHI (TsAGI) aerodynamicists nevertheless concluded that with the M-106 the speed
might be 780km/h (485mph). Lacking an engine the project came to a halt, and after the
German invasion in June 1941 it was abandoned. Bakshayev was appointed to supervise increased production of the 156km/h
(97mph) U-2 (Po-2) at Factory No 387.
The lifting surfaces of the RK-I were unique,
and quite unlike anything attempted by any
other designer. The aircraft was all-metal, the
large fuselage being a light-alloy monocoque
which would have housed the 1,800hp M-106
in the nose with the oil cooler underneath
and surrounded by two 20mm ShVAK cannon and two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns.
Behind the firewall were successively the fuel

tanks, backwards-retracting single-strut main
landing gears, enclosed cockpit and the glycol coolant radiator with controllable air
ducts on each side of the rear fuselage. The
amazing feature was that there were two
wings of equal span and narrow tapering
chord, one in front of the cockpit and the second, set at a slightly lower level, behind. Each
had upper and lower skins of spot-welded
SOKhGSA stainless steel, and the rear wing
was fitted with three hinged trailing-edge surfaces on each side serving as flaps and
ailerons. These movable surfaces, like the
tail, were made of light alloy. The unique feature was that on this aircraft the root of the
large wing extended completely around the
front wing and back almost to mid-chord of
the rear wing. Nested inside it were 14 further
wing profiles, which in 14 seconds could be
winched out over the entire span by an electric motor and cable track along the rear wing
leading edge, which was at right angles to the
longitudinal axis. Each section of the large
wing comprised a Dural leading edge and rib
with a fabric skin, the first section sealing the
side of the fuselage in the high-speed condition and serving as a wing end-plate in the extended low-speed configuration. Shavrov
gives the weight of all 28 telescopic sections
as approximately 330kg (727.5 Ib). Changing
141
RK-800
to the large-area configuration was intended
to have no significant effect on the rod-operated flight controls, a fact confirmed by CAHI
(TsAGI). Bakshayev left drawings showing
that a production aircraft would have had
only nine larger telescopic sections, and various other changes.
Had an M-106 engine been available this
aircraft might have flown. Pilots would then
have been able to assess whether (as seems
doubtful) the ability to fly with much less wing
RK-I, RK-800, with lower

side view showing fullscale model.
Sketches of RK-I showing its two configurations.
142
area than needed for take-off and landing

really offered any advantage to an aircraft
designed to engage in close combat.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area (large)
(small)
8.2m
8.8m
28.0m2
11.9m2
26 ft 10s/, in
28 ft 1014 in
301 ft2
128ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (estimate)
not recorded
3,100kg
6,834 Ib
Max speed (small wings)
780 km/h
Endurance
2 hrs 27 min
Landing speed (large wing) 115 km/h
485 mph
7 1.5 mph
NlKITIN
PSN
Nikitin PSN
Original 1936 version of PSN
(lower side view, 1938 PSN-1).
Purpose: A series of air-launched

experimental gliders intended to lead to airto-surface missiles.
Design Bureau: Initially OKB-21, later OKB30, chief designer N G Mikhel'son, later
VV Nikitin.
In 1933 S F Valk proposed the development
of a pilotless air-launched glider with an autopilot, infra-red homing guidance and large
warhead for use as a weapon against ships, or
other major heat-emitting targets. From 1935
this was developed in four versions which in
1937 were combined into the PSN (from the
Russian abbreviation for glider for special
purposes). At this stage chief designer was
Mikhel'son (see previous entry on MP). The
concept was gradually refined into the PSN-1,
of which a succession of ten prototypes were
launched from early 1937 from under the
wings of a TB-3 heavy bomber. By 1939 the totally different PSN-2 was also on test. Also
designated TOS, these were initially dropped
from the TB-3 and later towed behind a TB-7
and possibly other aircraft. In each case the
glider was to home on its target at high speed
after release from high altitude.
The PSN-1 was a small flying boat, with stabilizing floats under the high-mounted wing.
It had a cockpit in the nose, where in the

planned series version the warhead would
be. In the DPT version the payload was a
533mm (1ft 9in) torpedo hung underneath.
Once the basic air vehicle had been perfected the main purpose of flight testing was to
develop the Kvant (quantum) infra-red guidance. In contrast the PSN-2 was a twin-float
seaplane with a slim fuselage, low wing and
a large fin at the rear of each float. This again
was flown by human pilots to develop Kvant
guidance. After release from the parent aircraft the manned gliders made simulated at-
tacks on targets before turning away to alight

on the sea. The planned pilotless missiles
were intended to be expendable, and thus
had no need for provisions for alighting.
Neither of the PSN versions made it to production, these projects being stopped on 19th
July 1940. In retrospect they appear to have
been potentially formidable.
Two PSNs afloat.
143
NlKITIN
PSN
Dimensions (piloted versions)
PSN-1
Span
Weight empty
Payload
8.0m
970kg
1 tonne
PSN-2
Span
7.0m
Length
7.98m
Design mission of pilotless
version 40 km (25 miles) at 700 km/h
26 ft 3 in
2,1381b
2,205 Ib
22 ft UK in
26 ft 2% in
435 mph
Left: PSN-1, with bomblet container,

under wing of TB-3.
Bottom: PSN-2 without payload.
PSN-2 (side view shows dotted

outline of bomblet dispenser).
144
N I K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O IS-1
Purpose: To create a fighter able to fly as a
biplane or monoplane.
Design Bureau: OKB-30, Chief Designer
V V Shevchenko.
There is some dispute over who was responsible for the experimental IS fighters. Generally ascribed to VV Nikitin, in more recent
accounts he is hardly mentioned and all credit is given to Shevchenko who is quoted as
saying 'IS stands for losif Stalin'. In fact,
though the conception was indeed Shevchenko's, he was an NIl-WS test pilot who
was occasionally employed by Nikitin. Design
of the IS series was carried out in partnership
with Nikitin, and IS actually meant Istrebitel
Skladnoi, folding fighter. Surprisingly, it was
also given the official GUAP designation I-220,
even though this was also allocated to a highaltitude MiG fighter. The idea was that the aircraft should take off as a biplane, with a short
run, and then fold up the lower wing underneath the upper wing in order to reach high
speed as a monoplane. Shevchenko promoted the idea in November 1938, getting an enthusiastic response, and therefore in 1939
demonstrated a detailed working model built
at the Moscow Aviatekhnikum (MAT). His
project captivated Stalin and Beria, who
wanted the aircraft flying in time for the October Revolution parade in November 1939.
Shevchenko was given 76 million roubles and
facilities at Factory No 156, while the OKB-30

design team eventually numbered 60. The
IS-1 was first flown by V Kuleshov on 29th May
1940, and the lower wings were first folded by
G M Shiyanovon 21st June 1940. Shevchenko
states that Shiyanov carried out LII testing and
completed his report on 9th January 1941. According to Shevchenko, glowing accounts
were also written by such famous test pilots
as Suprun and Grinchik. In fact, Shavrov
records that 'State tests were considered unnecessary, as the maximum speed was only
453km/h'. As it was so much slower than the
LaGG, MiG and Yak fighters, this aircraft was
put into storage after the German invasion,

together with the IS-2.
As far as possible the IS-1 resembled the existing production fighter, the I-153. It had the
same 900hp M-63 engine, driving a Hamilton
VISh propeller of 2.8m (9ft 2in) diameter, and
apart from the extra 'wing fold' lever the
cockpits were identical. The airframe was allmetal, the fuselage framework being welded
SOKhGSA steel tube, with removable metal
panels to the front of the cockpit and fabric
aft, while each wing had similar construction
for the two spars, but D I G light-alloy ribs and
flush-riveted D I G skins. The tail was D I G with
IS-1
145
N l K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O IS-1/2
fabric covering. After take-off the pilot selected 'chassis up', folding the main landing
gears inwards by the 60-ata (882 lb/in2) pneumatic system. He could then select 'wing
fold', whereupon a pneumatic ram and
hinged levers on each side folded the lower
wing. The inboard half was then recessed
into the fuselage and the hinged outer half
(which remained horizontal throughout) was
recessed into the upper wing to complete its
aerofoil profile. The planned armament was
four ShKAS in the inner gull-wing part of the
upper wing. There was no cockpit armour.
Though it may have seemed a good idea,
the realization was a disappointment. Apart
from the overall inferiority of the IS-1 's performance, it was nonsense to reduce wing area
in an aircraft needing the maximum possible
combat agility, and moreover to try on the
one hand to increase wing area for take-off
Dimensions
Span (upper)
(lower, extended)
Length
Wing area (as biplane)
(upper only)
8.6m
6.72m
6.79m
20.83 nf
13.0m2
28 ft n in
22 ft !4 in
22 ft 3% in
224 ft2
140ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,400kg
2,300 kg
3,086 Ib
5,070 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
Time to climb 5 km
Service ceiling (as biplane)
Range
Take-off run (biplane)
Landing speed (biplane)
453km/h
5.0 min
8,800 m
600km
250m
115km/h
281 mph
16,404ft
28,870 ft
373 miles
820ft
7 1.5 mph
IS-1 inboard profile
and landing whilst simultaneously leaving

half the upper (main) wing with a huge hollow on the underside which destroyed the
aerofoil profile. A detail is that with the wings
folded there was nowhere for spent cartridge

cases to escape.
Previous page and below: Views of IS-1.
Nikitiii Shevcheiiko IS-2

Purpose: Improved version of IS-1
Design Bureau: OKB-30, chief designer
V V Shevchenko
The initial funding allocated to Shevchenko's
project actually paid for two prototypes.
Though construction of both began in parallel
it was soon decided to incorporate improvements in the dubler (second aircraft). Designated IS-2, and also known as the I-220t>/s,
this emerged from GAZ No 156 in early 1941.
Surviving documents differ. One account
states that the IS-2 'was ready in January
1941...the War broke out and only four test
flights were carried out.' Three other accounts, in Russian, French and English, state
that the aircraft was completed in April 1941
but had not flown when the Germans invaded. Shavrov is non-committal, but notes that
all performance figures are estimates. The
146
walk-round outdoor photos were all taken

with snow on the ground.
The IS-2 was a refined derivative of the IS-1.
The engine was an M-88 14-cylinder radial
rated at l,100hp, neatly installed in a longchord cowl with a prominent oil-cooler duct
underneath and driving a VISh-23 propeller
with a large spinner, but retaining Hucks
starter dogs. According to Podol'nyi, the fuselage cross-section was reduced (which is
certainly correct) and, while wing spans remained the same, chord was reduced in
order to increase aspect ratio and reduce
area. Shavrov and a French author state that
the wings of the IS-1 and IS-2 were geometrically identical. What certainly was altered
was that the landing-gear retraction system
was replaced by simply connecting the main
legs to the wing linkage, so that a single cockpit lever and a single pneumatic jack folded
the lower wings and the main landing gears

in a single movement. It is widely believed
that the IS-2 was not intended to fly in combat
as a biplane, the benefits being restricted to
take-off and landing. In the IS-1 documentation the idea that the aircraft might be operated as a biplane is never mentioned. If it were,
then what was the point of the folding lower
wing? Further modifications in the IS-2 were
that the tail was redesigned, the tailwheel
could retract and the two inboard ShKAS
were replaced by heavy 12.7mm Beresin BS
guns.
By the time this aircraft appeared, even
though it looked more modern than its predecessor, the WS was fast re-equipping with
simple monoplane fighters. These unquestionably stood more chance against the Luftwaffe than the IS-2 would have done.
NlKITIN-SHEVCHENKO
Dimensions
Span (upper)
(lower, extended)
Length
Wing area (as biplane)
(upper only)
IS-2 (enlarged side view shows monoplane)
8.6 m
6.72 m
7.36 m
20.83 m2
13.0m2
Weights
Loaded, Shavrov's 'estimated 2,180 kg'
is probably a misprint for 2,810kg
IS-2/4
28 ft n in
22 ft tf in
24 ft P/i in
224ft 2
140 ft2
6,195 Ib
Shavrov's speed of 588 km/h and ceiling of 1,100 m are suspect, and
Podol'nyi's '600 km/h' is even less credible; the only plausible figure
appears to be the 507 km/h (315 mph) of the French account.
Views of IS-2.
Nikitin Shevchenko IS-4

Purpose: This was intended to be the
ultimate biplane/monoplane fighter.
Design Bureau: OKB-30, chief designer
V V Shevchenko
Dismissed by Shavrov in a single line, the IS-3
and IS-4 were the last of Shevchenko's convertible biplane/monoplane projects. No IS-3
documents have been found, but brief details
and a three-view drawing exist of the IS-4.
Unlike its predecessors, this was a 'clean
sheet of paper' aircraft, an optimised fuselage
fitted with shutters to cover the retracted
lower wing and landing gear. The latter was
of the nosewheel type, the cockpit was en-
closed, and armament was to be the same as

the IS-2. The engine selected was Klimov's
M-120, with three six-cylinder cylinder blocks
of VK-105 type spaced at 120, rated at
l,800hp. When it was clear that this engine
would not be ready Shevchenko reluctantly
switched to the equally massive AM-37 Vee12, rated at l,380hp. In about 1942 he revised
the IS-4 so that it would have been powered
by a 2,000hp M-71F radial, and would have
been fitted with slats on the upper wing to
eliminate tail buffet. No photographs of the
IS-4 have been found, though two documents
insist that it was built and one even states
that it flew.
Little need be added, beyond the report

that, despite the considerable increase in
weight over the previous IS fighters, the wings
were smaller. Even with slats it is difficult to
see how the landing speed could have been
slower. In the conditions prevailing during the
War it is stretching credulity to believe that
this aircraft could have been built.
Shevchenko persisted with his biplane/
monoplane idea too long. His last project was
the IS-14 of 1947, a jet with monoplane wings
which not only were pivoted to vary the
sweepback up to 61 but could also (by
means unstated) vary the span.
147
N l K I T I N - S H E V C H E N K O IS-4, OOS STAl'-5
IS-4 (side view shows monoplane, inset shows biplane with M-120 engine).
Dimensions (estimated for final form, with M-7 IF engine)

Span (upper)
7.5m
24 ft 714 in
(lower)
5.6m
18 ft 414 in
Length
8.28m
27 ft 2 in
Wing area (biplane)
18.0m2
194 ff
2
(upper wing only)
10.0m
108ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
2,140kg
3,100kg
4,718 Ib
6,834 Ib
Performance
Max speed (monoplane)
at sea level,
at 6.0 km (19,685 ft)
minimum flying speed
660km/h
720km/h
107km/h
410 mph
447 mph
66.5 mph
OOS Stal'-5
Purpose: Flying-wing transport or bomber.
Design Bureau: OOS, Russian for Section
for Experimental Aeroplane Construction,
Moscow Tushino.
Along with Kozlov (see 'invisible aircraft'
story) the chief designer at OOS was Aleksandr Ivanovich Putilov, who joined from
CAHI (TsAGI) when OOS was just a group inOOS Stal'-5
terested in steel airframes. The Stal' (steel) 5

was sketched in 1933 in two forms, as a transport and also as the KhB (Khimicheskii Boyevik), an attack aircraft for spraying poison gas
(obviously it could also carry bombs). In 1934
a complete wing spar was made for static
test, and in late 1935 VVKarpov and
Ya G Paul actually flight-tested a scale model
with a span of 6m (19ft 7in), wing area of
15.0m2 (161.5ft2) and two 45hp Salmson engines. It was difficult to fly, and the idea was
dropped.
Putilov's flying wing was to be powered by
two 750hp M-34F water-cooled V-12 engines.
The structure was to have been almost entirely Enerzh-6 stainless steel, skinned with
Bakelite-bonded veneer over the centre section and fabric elsewhere. The drawing
shows the slotted flaps, elevator and four retractable wheels. The payload was to have
been between the spars in the centroplan
(centre wing), deep enough for people to
walk upright.
Several designers, notably the American
Burnelli, tried to make extra-efficient aircraft
along these lines. None succeeded.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
Weights (estimated)
Empty
Loaded
No other data.
148
23.0m
12.5m
120nf
75 ft 5^ in
41ft
l,292ft !
5.5 tonnes
8 tonnes
12,125 Ib
1 7,640 Ib
P E T L Y A K O V Pe-2 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S
Petlyakov Pe-2 experimental versions

Purpose: To test various items on modified
Pe-2 aircraft.
Design Bureau: Basic aircraft, '100' in
special prison CCB-29 (TsKB-29), later
V M Petlyakov's own OKB.
Production of this outstanding fast tactical
bomber totalled 11,427. One of the experimental wartime versions was the Pe-2Sh
(Shturmovik, assaulter) with various combinations of 20mm ShVAK cannon and 7.62mm
ShKAS either firing ahead from a gondola or
installed in one or more batteries firing
obliquely down from what had been the fuselage bomb bay. The Pe-2VI and Pe-2VB were
special high-altitude versions with pressurized cabins and VK-105PD engines with twostage superchargers. The Pe-2RD was fitted
with a Dushkin/Glushko RD-1 or RD-lKhZ
rocket engine installed in the tailcone, with
the tanks and control system in the rear fuselage. This aircraft was tested in 1943 by Mark
L Gallai. Like the similarly modified Tu-2, the
Pe-2 Paravan (paravane) had a 5m (16ft Sin)
beam projecting ahead of the nose from the
tip of which strong cables led tightly back to
the wingtips. While the Tu-2 had a tubular
beam, that of the Pe-2 was a truss girder, and
the balloon cables struck by the wires were
deflected further by large wingtip rails. From
1945 one Pe-2, as well as at least one Tu-2,

was used by CIAM and Factory No 51 to flight
test a succession of pulsejet engines beginning with captured German Argus 109-014
flying-bomb units. Test engines were mounted above the rear fuselage, with fuel fed by
pressurizing the special aircraft tank to
1.5kg/cm2 (21.31b/in2). In 1946-51, under
V N Chelomey, Factory 51 improved this German pulsejet into a succession of engines
designated from D-3 to D-14-4. All the early
models were tested on the Pe-2, despite
fatigue caused by the severe vibration.
Rear defence by aft-firing RO-82 rockets:

RUB-2L dorsal and RUB-4 ventral.
Top left: Twin ShVAK-20 cannon in Pe-2Sh

(two more were further back).
Right: Pe-2VI.
Below left: Pe-2RD (rocket engine fairing removed).
Below right: Pe-2 testing 109-014 pulsejet.
M9
P E T L Y A K O V Pe-8 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S
Petlyakov Pe-8 experimental versions
Purpose: To test various items on modified

Pe-8 aircraft.
Design Bureau: Originally sub-group KB-1
within special design bureau KOSOS,
created in 1935 to manage the ANT-42 (ANT
from Andrei N Tupolev). Prototype built at
GAZ No 156, the special factory at the secure
NKVD site where aircraft designers were
imprisoned. Petlyakov was rehabilitated in
July 1940 and made General Constructor of
his own OKB until he was killed in a Pe-2 on
12th January 1942.
First flown on 27th December 1936, the ANT-42
was redesignated Pe-8 for its lead designer
during 1943. Though built only in modest
numbers, this heavy bomber was by that time
in service in versions powered by the AM-35A,
the M-30, M-40 and ACh-30B diesels and the
ASh-82 radial. Because of the small numbers
only a handful were available for experimental work, but the work they did was varied.
One of the final batch of four, designated
Pe-8ON (Osobogo Naznacheniya, special assignment) and originally built as long-range
VIP transports, was used to test a range of
special equipment for use in Polar regions, including navaids able to operate at 90 latitude
and long-range voice communications. Using
various engines, Pe-8 bombers tested a range
of new designs of propeller, including types
150
later used for turboprops. At least three aircraft served CIAM and various engine KBs as
engine test-beds, ten types of experimental
engine being mounted on the wings, on the
nose or under the bomb bay.
The Pe-8 was also important in the development of many types of bomb and other airlaunched weapon. Such work culminated in
the testing of captured German FilOS ('V.l')
flying bombs and of the Soviet cruise missiles
derived from it. Unlike the Germans, the MVS
(ministry of weapons) decided that all the
earliest trials should be of the air-launched
versions. Launching equipment was produced at GAZ No 456 (General Constructor
IV Chetverikov, see earlier), and GAZ No 51
produced three sets of pylons matched to the
Pe-8. The only other possible carrier of the
original single-engined missile was the Yer-2,
but the Pe-8 was preferred because of its
greater load-carrying ability and flight endurance. Initially 63 German missiles were
launched on the Dzhisak range near
Tashkent between 20th March and late August 1945. In 1946 two more Pe-8 bombers
were taken from store at GAZ No 22 (the original Tupolev production plant at Kazan) and
modified to carry the improved lOKh (written
10X in Cyrillic). Assisted by GAZ No 125 at
Irkutsk, Factory No 51 produced 300 of this
version, and 73 were tested from the Pe-8s
Top left: Pe-8 with ACH-30B diesel engines testing

ASh-21 on the nose.
Top right and above: Two views of Pe-8 (ASh-82
engines) launcher for lOKh flying bombs.
between 15th December 1947 and 20th July

1948. Most had speed increased from 600 to
800km/h (497mph) by fitting the D-5 pulsejet
engine, and nearly all had wooden wings. In
parallel the 14Kh was produced, with the D-5
engine and tapered wings, ten being tested
from Pe-8s between 1st and 29th July 1948.
The final variant was the 16Kh Priboi (breakers, surf), and though this could be launched
from a Tu-2 the Pe-8 remained the principal
carrier. This version had twin D-14-4 engines,
twin fins, precision radar/radio guidance and
a speed of 858km/h, later raised to 900km/h
(559mph). It was tested by the Pe-8, Tu-2 and
Tu-4, but never entered service.
POLIKARPOV I-15 AND I-153 WITH GK
Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 with GK
I-15 with improved GK
I-153V
Purpose: To test pressurized cockpits.

Design Bureau: OSK (Department for
Special Construction), Moscow, lead
designer Aleksei Yakovlevich Shcherbakov,
and Central Construction Bureau (General
Designer N N Polikarpov) where
Shcherbakov also worked.
In 1935 Shcherbakov was sent to OSK to specialize in the problems of high-altitude flight.
He concentrated on the detailed engineering
of pressurized cockpits, called GK (Germeticheskaya Kabina, hermetic cabin). By
this time the BOK-1 had already been designed and was almost ready to fly, but
Shcherbakov did not spend much time studying that group's difficulties. His first GK was
tested on S P Korolyov's SK-9 sailplane, predecessor of the RP-318 described previously.
The second was constructed in a previously
built Polikarpov I-15 biplane fighter. Polikar-
pov's biplane fighters were noted for their

outstanding high-altitude capability, and from
1938 Shcherbakov spent most of his time as
Polikarpov's senior associate. The modified
aircraft first flew in 1938. Later in the same
year an I-15 was tested with a very much better GK. In 1939 the definitive GK was tested on
an I-153, an improved fighter whose design
was directed by Shcherbakov. The test-bed
aircraft was designated I-153V (from Vysotnyi, height). This cockpit formed the basis for
those fitted to MiG high-altitude fighters, beginning with the 3A (MiG-7, I-222). Later
Shcherbakov managed GK design for four
other OKBs, and from 1943 created his own
aircraft at his own OKB.
No details have been discovered of the
first GK, for the SK-9, and not many of the
second, fitted to an I-15 with spatted main
landing gear. Like other aircraft of the 1930s,
the I-15 fuselage was based on a truss of
welded KhMA (chrome-molybdenum steel)
tubing, with fabric stretched over light secondary aluminium-alloy structure. Accordingly, Shcherbakov had to build a complete
cockpit shell inside the fuselage, made of thin
light-alloy sheet. He had previously spent two
years studying how to seal joints, and the
holes through which passed wires to the control surfaces and tubes to the pressure-fed instruments. On top was a dome of duralumin,
Top left: I-15 with the first GK (canopy with

portholes hinged open).
Above right: I-153V.
Left.I- 153V cockpit.
hinged upwards at the rear. In this were set

rubber rings sealing 12 discs of Plexiglas, with
bevelled edges so that internal pressure seated them more tightly on their frames. Pilots
said the view was unacceptably poor, as they
had done with the original BOK-1. The installation in the second aircraft, with normal unspatted wheels, was a vast improvement.
Overall pilot view was hardly worse than from
an enclosed unpressurized cockpit (but of
course it could not compare with the original
open cockpit). The main design problem was
the heavily framed windscreen, with an optically flat circular window on the left and the
SR optical sight sealed into the thick window
in the centre. The main hood was entirely
transparent and hinged upwards. Behind, the
decking of the rear fuselage was also transparent. The I-153V had a different arrangement: the main hood could be unsealed and
then rotated back about a pivot on each side
to lie inside the fixed rear transparent deck.
Unknown in the outside world, by 1940
Shcherbakov was the world's leading designer of pressurized fighter cockpits.
151
POLIKARPOV I-152/DM-2 A N D I-153/DM-4
Polikarpov I 152 DM 2 and M53/DM-4

Purpose: To test ramjet engines and
investigate performance of aircraft thus
boosted.
Design Bureau: Joint effort by
A Ya Shcherbakov (aircraft) and Igor
A Merkulov (ramjet engines).
In July 1939 Merkulov proposed that simple
subsonic ramjets (PVRD) should be hung
under the wings of fighters to boost their performance. Given the go-ahead by Narkomavprom, he collaborated with Shcherbakov
in thus boosting Polikarpov biplane fighters.
Bench testing the small DM-1 (Dvigatel'
Merkulov) engine began in August 1939, and
the larger DM-2 (or DM-02) began bench testing a month later. In December 1939 two
DM-2 engines were attached under the lower
wings of I-152 (I-156/s) No 5942, then skiequipped, at the M V Frunze Moscow Central
Aerodrome. Towards the end of the month
pilot Piotr Loginov began flight testing without
operating the ramjets. In late December Loginov tested the fuel and ignition systems, and
on 27th January 1941 official NIl-WS trials
began with the ramjets firing. This was the

first flight in the world of any ramjet-equipped
manned aircraft. The DM-2 testing involved 54
fiights by late June 1940, 34 by Loginov, 18 by
A V Davydov and two by N A Sopotsko. By this
time Merkulov had extensively tested the
considerably larger DM-4. On 3rd September
1940 Loginov first flew an I-153 (No 6034) fitted with two DM-2 ramjets, and on 3rd October he made the first flight of this aircraft with
two DM-4s. The DM-4 was also flown under
the I-152. Use of the two biplanes as DM testbeds was abandoned in December 1940 after
20 flights with DM-4s.
The Merkulov ramjets were simple profiled
propulsive ducts burning the same petrol
(gasoline) fuel as the aircraft main engine.
This was fed by an engine-driven auxiliary
pump around the double-skinned jetpipe
throat and nozzle to cool the inner wall. Still
liquid, the fuel was then sprayed into the interior duct where to initiate combustion it
was ignited electrically. The static-tested
DM-1 had a diameter of 240mm (91/2in). The
DM-2, flown on the I-152, had a diameter of
400mm (1ft 3%in), length of 1.5m (4ft llin)

and weight of 19kg (41.91b). The fabric covering over the I-152 rear fuselage and tail was
replaced by thin aluminium, flush-riveted.
This proved to be a wise precaution, because
with the ramjets operating the flame extended beyond the tail of the aircraft. The DM-4
had a diameter of 500mm (1 ft 7%in), length of
1.98m (78in) and weight of 30kg (66 Ib).
The ramjets were never fired in the air for
as long as a minute, though on bench test five
hours was once demonstrated. Most tests
were in bursts of about ten seconds, and
Loginov recorded the simplicity of control
and smoothness of ramjet operation. The two
DM-2 ramjets boosted the maximum speed of
the I-152 by a maximum of 20km/h (12.4mph),
but at the cost of much poorer performance
and manoeuvrability with the ramjets inoperative. The DM-4 ramjets boosted the speed of
the I-153 by a maximum of 51 km/h (31. 7mph),
from 389 to 440km/h (241.7 to 273.4mph) but
again with severe penalties and with excessive fuel consumption.
I-156/s with two DM-02.
Above: I-156/s with DM-02.

Left. I-153 with DM-02.
152
POLIKARPOV I-152/DM-2 AND I-153/DM-4, POLIKARPOV MALYUTKA
M52 with DM-4
I-153 with DM-4
I-153 with DM 4.
Polikarpov Malyutka
Purpose: Short-range interceptor to defend
high-value targets.
Design Bureau: OKB of Nikolai N
Polikarpov, evacuated to Novosibirsk.
This was the last aircraft of Polikarpov design,
and he oversaw its progress himself. It was an
OKB project, begun in June 1943. Construction of a single prototype began in early 1944.
Progress was rapid until 30th July 1944, when
Polikarpov suffered a massive heart attack
and died at his desk. Even though the prototype was almost complete, work stopped and
was never resumed.
The key to the Malyutka ('Little one') was
the existence of the NIl-1 rocket engine. Developed by the team led by V P Glushko, this
controllable engine had a single thrust chamber fed with RFNA (concentrated nitric acid)
and kerosene. Maximum thrust at sea level
was 1,200kg, but in this aircraft the brochure
figure was 1,000kg (2,205 Ib). Bearing no direct
relevance to any previous Polikarpov fighter,

the airframe had a curvaceous Shpon (plastic-bonded birch laminates) fuselage sitting
on a wing of D-l stressed-skin construction.
The tail was also D-l alloy. The pressurized
cockpit was in the nose, behind which was
the radio, oxygen bottles asnd gun magazines, followed by a relatively enormous tank
of acid and a smaller one of kerosene. The tricycle landing gears and split flaps were operated pneumatically, and the armament
comprised two powerful VYa-23 cannon.
Had it run a year or two earlier this might
have been a useful aircraft, though it offered
little that was not already being done by the BI
and Type 302. At the same time, the death of
the General Constructor should not have
brought everything to a halt.
Dimensions (performance estimated)

7.5m
Span
7.3m
Length
8.0m2
Wing area
24 ft n in
23 ft 11 Min
86ft 2
Weights
Empty
Propellants
Loaded
1,016kg
1,500kg
2,795kg
2,240 Ib
3,307 Ib
6,162 Ib
Performance
Service ceiling
Landing speed (empty tanks)
890 km/h
1 min
16km
135 km/h
553 mph
16,404ft
52,500 ft
84 mph
153
POLIKARPOV MALYUTKA / RAFAELYANTS TURBOLYOT
Malyutka
Malyutka inboard profile
Rafaelyants Turbolyot
Purpose: To evaluate a wingless jet VTOL
aircraft.
Design Bureau: Aram Nazarovich
Rafaelyants, chief engineer of GVF (civil air
fleet) repair and modification shops at
Bykovo.
Rafaelyants was working at Bykovo, on the
Volga, in 1929-59. He had previously produced two lightplanes, flying his RAF-2 to
Berlin in 1927. In 1941 his RAF-1 Ibis transport
nearly went into production. He worked on
many aircraft, and after 1945 handled projects concerned with jet engines and their
testing. The Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig
('Flying Bedstead') of 1953 inspired him to
produce the Turbolyot. This was flown tethered to a gantry in early 1957, and was publicly demonstrated in free flight in October of
that year. Nearly all the flying was done by helicopter test pilot Yu A Garnayev. Because of
its historical interest, the Turbolyot is today
stored in the WS museum at Monino, although it was not a WS aircraft but a civilian
flying test rig.
The engine selected was the Lyul'ka AL-9G,
a single-shaft turbojet rated at 6,500kg
(14,330 Ib). This was mounted vertically in the
centre of a cruciform framework of welded
steel tube. The engine had special bearings
154
and lubrication, and was fitted with a highcapacity bleed collector ring. On each side
was a fuel tank, with fuel drawn equally from
both. In front was the enclosed pilot cab, with
a door on the right. The bleed system served
four pipes, one to each extremity of the vehicle, where downward- and upward-pointing
nozzles were provided with a modulating
valve under the management of the pilot's
control column. The same system also oper-
ated rods and levers governing a two-axis tilting deflector ring under the engine nozzle.
Each of the four main structural girders was
provided with a long-stroke vertical landing
leg with a castoring wheel.
This device never crashed, and provided a
solid background of data for the Yak-36 and
subsequent jet-lift aircraft.
Turbolyot
SUKHOI
Su-5, I - 1 0 7
Sukhoi Su-5,I-107
Purpose: To create an interceptor with
piston engine plus VRDK propulsion.
Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow.
The urgent demand for faster fighters, to meet
the competition of German and Allied jets revealed in January 1944, is given in the story of
the Mikoyan I-250 (N). Apart from Mikoyan
Sukhoi was the only designer to respond to
this call, and (because the propulsion system
was the same) he created a very similar aircraft. Two examples were funded, the second
being used for tunnel testing at CAHI (TsAGI).
The red-painted flight article first flew - it is believed, at Novosibirsk - on 6th April 1945, a
month after its rival. On 15th July 1945 the test
programme was interrupted by failure of the
main engine, and the opportunity was taken to
fit a new wing with CAHI (TsAGI) laminar profile. In August the replacement engine failed.
As no replacement VK-107A was available,
and such aircraft were by this time outmoded,
the test programme was discontinued.
The Su-5 was a conventional fighter of its
time, notable only for its small size and deep
fuselage to accommodate the VRDK duct. The
second wing fitted had a 16.5-per-cent CAHI
1VI0 profile at the root, thinned down to 11 per
cent NACA-230 near the tip. It was made in
three parts, with bolted joints outboard of the
landing gears. The split flaps spanned this
joint. The Frise ailerons were fully balanced,
the port surface having a trim tab. Most of the
fuselage was occupied by the propulsion system. The VK-107A engine, rated at l,650hp,
drove a four-blade 2.89m (9ft 5%in) propeller,
with a clutched rear drive to a 13:21 step-up
gearbox to the VRDK compressor. In the duct
were the carburettor inlets, radiator, seven
combustion chambers and double-wall pipe
of heat-resistant steel leading to a variable
propulsive nozzle. The No 2 aircraft had a circular multi-flap nozzle projecting behind the
fuselage. In the left inner wing was a broad but
shallow inlet for the ducted oil cooler, with exit
under the wing. This required a modified
upper door to the left landing gear, with 650 x
200 tyres and track of 3.15m (10ft 4in). The tailwheel, with 300x125 tyre, retracted into an
open asbestos-lined box in a ventral fairing.
The rudder and inset-hinge elevators all had
spring-tab drives. The cockpit had 10mm (%in)
back armour and a sliding canopy, the No 2 aircraft having a transparent rear fairing. Three
tanks housed 646 litres (142 Imperial gallons)
of fuel, consumed in lOmin of VRDK operation. Armament comprised one NS-23 with 100
rounds and two UBS with 400 rounds above
the engine.
Sukhoi said later this aircraft was a 'nonstarter' from the outset.
Su-5 No 2 (upper side view, Nol)
Dimensions
Span
Length (Nol)
(No 2)
Wing area
10.562m
8.26m
8.51m
17.0m2
34 ft 1% in
26 ft min
27ft 11 in
183ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
2,954kg
3,804 kg
6,512 Ib
8,386 Ib
Performance
645 km/h
at 7.8 km (25,590 ft) rising to 810 km/h
5.7 min
Service ceiling
12.05km
Range
600km
Take-off
345m
Landing speed/
140 km/h
run
600m
401 mph
503 mph
16,400ft
39,535ft
373 miles
1,358ft
87 mph
1,969ft
Su-5 No 2
Below: Su-5 No 2.
155
S U K H O I Su-7R
Sukhoi Su-7R
Purpose: To create a mixed-power (piston
engine plus rocket) fighter.
Design Bureau: OKB of Pavel Osipovich
Sukhoi, Moscow. Note: this aircraft was not
related to the later Su-7 jet fighter.
Having in 1941 seen the Su-2 attack bomber
accepted into production, Sukhoi subsequently never dislodged the IL-2/IL-10, despite the excellence of different versions of
Aircraft A (Su-6). In 1942 he was authorized to

was replaced by a single-seat cockpit with a
develop the A into a single-seat fighter This
unged canopy with a fairing behind it. An adflew in late 1943 and underwent various modditional fuel tank replaced the internal
ifications, in its final form being tested by
G Komarov between 31st January and 20th weapons bay, and the large-calibre wing
December 1945. By this time it was no longer guns were removed, the armament being
three synchronized ShVAK 20mm cannon
of interest.
each with 370 rounds. At first the ASh-71 type
The Su-7R was based upon the airframe of
engine was retained, but this was soon rethe Su-6(A), but with a new all-metal semiplaced by a smaller and less-powerful AShmonocoque fuselage. The two-seat cockpit
82FN, rated at l,850hp on 100-octane fuel
driving an AV-9L four-blade propeller. In 1944
a TK-3 turbosupercharger was added on each
side, and an RD-lKhZ rocket engine was installed in a new extended tailcone. As described previously, this Dushkin/Glushko
engine had a single thrust chamber burning
the same petrol (gasoline) as the piston engine, which ignited hypergolically (instant reaction) when mixed with RFNA (red fuming
nitric acid). The acid was housed in an additional tank behind the cockpit, with access
through a dorsal hatch. This tank gave a continuous burn time of about four minutes.
When rocket power was selected, the propellants were fed at a rate of 1.6kg (3.5 Ib) per
second, giving a thrust of 300kg (661 Ib) at sea
level and about 345kg (761 Ib) at high altitude.
By 1945 this aircraft was no longer competitive, and the rocket engine never went into
production. In any case, during a practice for
the first post-war air display in late 1945 the
rocket engine exploded, casing a fatal crash.
Dimensions (final standard)
P
13.5m
Len
'h
10.03m
Wing area
26.0m2
44 ft 3^ in
32 ft 103/i in
280 ft2
Weights
Em
P'y
Fuel/oil/acid
Loaded
7,1651b
1,058/11 0/397 Ib
9,612 Ib
s an
3,250kg
480/50/1 80 kg
4 j36 okg
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level (no rocket)
480 km/h
at 7.5 km (24,600 ft) with rocket 680 km/h
at 12 km (39,370 ft) with rocket 705 km/h
Service ceiling
12,750m
Range (with full rocket bum) 800 km
Take-off
300 m
Landing speed/
125 km/h
run
350m
Left: Two views of Su-7R.

156
298 mph
423 mph
438 mph
41,831 ft
497 miles
984ft
78 mph
1,148ft
SLJKHOI Su-17, R
Sukhoi Su-17, R
Purpose: To exceed Mach 1 and possibly
serve as the basis for a fighter.
Note: this aircraft was not related to later
aircraft with the same designation.
In late 1947 the Council of Ministers issued a
plan for 1948-49 calling for the construction of
new experimental aircraft. One type was to
research high-subsonic, transonic and low
supersonic speeds, and also if possible provide the basis for the design of a supersonic
tactical fighter. Contracts were issued to
Yakovlev (Type 1000) and Sukhoi (Aircraft R).
In each case funds were provided for one
flight article and one static test specimen, and
Sukhoi's design proceeded rapidly. From the
outset provision was made for two heavy cannon, and in 1949 the WS designation Su-17
was issued. As early as July 1949 the flight article was taken to LIl-MAP at Zhukovskii,
where the assigned pilot, Sergei Anokhin, carried out increasingly fast taxi tests. Just as he
was about to make the first flight the Su-15
radar-equipped interceptor suffered violent
flutter and crashed, Anokhin ejecting. Rather
precipitately, CAHI (TsAGI) blamed Sukhoi,
and moreover claimed that the wing of Aircraft R was also torsionally weak and would
flutter at high airspeeds. CAHI therefore refused to issue flight clearance for this aircraft.
In turn this led Stalin to order that Sukhoi's
OKB should be liquidated on 1st November
1949. It was reopened in 1953 after Stalin's
death.
This outstanding design was made possible by the rapid development of the powerful
TR-3 (later called AL-5) afterburning axial turbojet by A M Lyul'ka, qualified in January
1950 at 4,600kg (10,141 Ib), with a dry rating of
4 tonnes (8,8181b). Had the Su-17 continued
it would certainly have later flown with more
powerful Lyul'ka engines. The propulsion
system was 'straight through' from the plain
nose inlet, which immediately divided to pass
each side of the cockpit, to the tail. Amid-
ships, at Frames 15/15A and 20/20A, the main

wing spars passed through at mid-level. The
wing had CAHI (TsAGI)-9030 profile at the
root, changing to symmetric SR-3-12s at the
tip, the !4-chord sweep being 50. Above each
wing were two full-chord fences plus another
from the leading edge to the aileron. Three
tracks carried each of the Fowler-type flaps.
High on the large vertical tail was mounted
the fixed tailplane, again with 50 ^-chord
sweep and ground adjustable over the range
1.5. The port aileron and starboard elevator
had tabs, and the rudder had a section of
'knife' (thin strip behind the trailing edge).
This aircraft pioneered Soviet use of hydraulically boosted flight controls, on all axes. All
units of the landing gear had levered suspension, using high-pressure shock absorbers pioneered on the Su-15, and retracted into the
fuselage. The nose unit had a 530 x 230mm
tyre and retracted to the rear, while each
main unit had an 800 x 225mm tyre and pneumatic plate brake and retracted forwards
about a skewed axis under the wing root, to
be covered by a large door. The ventral bulge
under the tail had a steel underside and made
provision for housing a cruciform braking
parachute. On each side of the rear fuselage
was a door-type airbrake, opened to 60,
which like the flaps, landing gear and flight
controls, was operated by a hydraulic system
at what was then a new high pressure of
211kg/cm2 (207-MPa, 3,000lb/in2). The cockpit was pressurized, maintaining 0.65kg/cm2
(9.2 lb/in2) up to 7km (22,966ft) and holding a
constant dP of 0.3kg/cm2 (4.3 lb/in2) above
that level. Like several previous Soviet aircraft, the pilot's ejection-seat was mounted in
a nose section designed to separate from the
fuselage in an emergency. The planar joint,
sealed by an inflatable ring, sloped forward to
avoid the nose-gear, and it could be broken
by firing a cordite charge at the bottom joint,
allowing the nose to pivot and separate from
the two upper connections. Separation was
triggered automatically if vertical accelera-
tion reached 18 g, or under pilot commcind.

The separated nose streamed a drogue
which after a delay extracted the main ribbon
parachute. The pilot could then eject, experiencing a maximum of 5 g. The pilot could also
eject normally, from the intact aircraft, but
only after jettisoning the sideways-hinged
canopy. A total of 1,219 litres (268 Imperial
gallons) of fuel was housed in the fuselage,
there being one metal and two bladder tanks
behind the cockpit and three metal tanks
(one a toroidal hollow ring) around the jetpipe. Provision was made for a jettisonable
300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) tank to be
scabbed under each wing, and for two N-37
guns, each with 40 rounds, to be mounted in
the fuselage. The avionics were comprehensive, including vhf, radio compass, an IFF
transponder and precision radio altimeter.
There is no reason to doubt that this aircraft
would have been most valuable, and preventing it from flying appears in retrospect to have
been a serious error. The Soviet Union suffered from its thoughtless precipitate actions.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
9.6m
15.253m
27.5 rrf
31 ft 6 in
50 ft 1A in
296 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
6,240kg
7,390kg
13,757 Ib
16,292 Ib
Max speed, at sea level
l,252km/h
778 mph (Mach 1.022)
at 10 km (32,808 ft)
1,152 km/h
716 mph (Mach 1.08)
Time to climb to 10km
3.5 min
(32,808ft)
Service ceiling
15.5km
50,853 ft
Range (internal fuel at 10 km cruising at 830 km/h, 516 mph)
550 km
342 miles
Take-off run
450m
1,476ft
Landing speed/
194 km/h
120.5 mph
run
660m
2,165ft
Su-17, R
157
S U K H O I S u - 1 7 , R / S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7
Left: Two views of Su-17, R.

Above: Looking back at the Su-17 with jettisonable
cockpit removed.
Sukhoi T-3 and PT-7

Purpose: To create a supersonic radarequipped interceptor.
Design Bureau: Reopened OKB-51 of
P O Sukhoi, Moscow.
After closure of his OKB, in December 1949
Sukhoi became deputy to his old colleague
A N Tupolev, where among other things he
collaborated with CAHI (TsAGI) in establishing the best wing for supersonic fighters. He
played the central role in deciding on two
contrasting forms. For tactical fighters the
choice was an S (Strelovidnoye, arrow like)
swept wing with a !4-chord sweep angle of 60
or 62, and for radar-equipped interceptors
the best answer was a T (Treoogol'noye,
three-angled, ie delta) wing with J4-chord
sweep angle of 57 or 60. For obvious reasons, the latter type of wing was soon dubbed
Balalaika. On Stalin's death Sukhoi applied
for permission to reopen his OKB. This was at
once granted, and in May 1953 he gathered
his team at the original premises at 23A Polikarpov Street. Following from his aerodynamic research he received MAP contracts
for basically similar aircraft, S-l with the S
wing and T-l with the T wing. As he chose to
build large aircraft powered by a powerful
Lyul'ka engine, which matured rapidly, their
development was swift. S-l led to the production Su-7 and many other aircraft. T-l was
replaced on the drawing board by T-3, and
158
this was flown by V N Makhalin on 26th May

1956. Just over a month later it was the final
aircraft in the parade of new fighters at Tushino on 24th June, causing intense interest and
great confusion in the West. A few weeks behind came the PT-7. These were tested intensively by a pilot team which included
Pronyarkin, Koznov, Kobishkan and the future Sukhoi chief test pilot Vladimir Ilyushin,
son of the General Designer.
Like S-l, the T-3 had a barrel-like fuselage,
much of its length being occupied by the big
afterburning AL-7F engine, rated at 9,000kg
(19,840 Ib) with afterburner and 6,500kg
(14,330 Ib) dry. The tails of the two aircraft
were almost identical, and there were only
minor differences in the cockpit, landing gear
and most of the systems. The wings of both
aircraft were in the low/mid position, attached by precision bolts to strong forged root
ribs on heavy forged fuselage frames. The
wing had S-9s profile with a thickness/chord
ratio of 4.2 per cent over most of the span. The
shape was almost a perfect delta, with a leading-edge angle of 60. The leading edge was
fixed, while the trailing edge comprised rectangular slotted flaps with a maximum angle
of 25 and sharply tapered ailerons with inset
hinges which extended to the near-pointed
tips. Incidence was 0 and dihedral -2 (ie, 2
anhedral). Structurally the wing had three
main spars, each principally a machined forg-
ing, plus a rear spar to carry the trailing-edge

surfaces. The leading edge was attached to
the front of a further spar forming the front of
the structural box. The forward triangle
ahead of Spar 1 and the volume between
Spars 2 and 3 were sealed and formed integral fuel tanks. The whole space between
Spars 1 and 2 was occupied by the retracted
main landing gear. The flaps were driven at
their inboard ends by electro-hydraulic
power units inside fairings under the lower
wing surface. The circular-section fuselage
was liberally covered with access doors and
hatches. The nose was just one of several
contrasting answers tested by Sukhoi to the
problem of fitting radar into a supersonic
fighter. The fire-control system was to be one
of the Uragan (Hurricane) family, with the
search scanner at the top of the nose and the
Almaz (Diamond) ranging radar underneath
inside the inlet. The main scanner was inside
a low-drag radome in the form of a flattened
cone (with a curious upward tilt) from which
projected the PVD-7 instrumentation boom
combining the pitot/static heads with pitch
and yaw vanes. Additional instrument booms
were mounted inboard of each wingtip. Even
though the T-3 was to be a supersonic aircraft
there seemed no alternative to making the
radome over the ranging set a bluff hemisphere, which had an adverse effect on pressure recovery in the air inlet. The latter
S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7
immediately divided into left and right ducts
which quickly expanded into vertically symmetric ducts along each fuselage wall. These
combined behind the cockpit into a circular
tube passing above the wing and then expanding to fill virtually the entire fuselage
cross-section to mate with the face of the engine compressor at Frame 29. Between
Frames 31 and 32 on each side of the top of
Below: Two views of T-3.
the fuselage was a large grilled aperture

through which hot air could be violently expelled from the compressor during engine
start. At Frame 32 a bolted joint enabled the
entire rear fuselage to be removed for servicing or changing the engine. At Frame 38 were
hinged four door-type airbrakes with large
slot perforations. At Frame 43 were the
skewed pivots for the horizontal tailplanes,
each of which was a single-piece 'slab' with a
leading-edge sweep of 60 and an anti-flutter
mass projecting forwards near each tip. The
large fin curved away from a dorsal extension
in which a screwed panel gave access to

the power unit driving the rudder, which
was hung on three inset hinges. Each tail surface had chem-milled skins attached to ribs
at 90 to the surface rear spar. The fuselage
tail end was mainly of titanium. The nose
landing gear had a 660 x 200 tyre and retracted forwards. Each main unit had an 880 x 230
tyre and, unlike the swept-wing Sukhois, retracted straight inwards. Track was 4.65m
(15ft Sin) and wheelbase 5.05m (16ft 7in).
The cockpit housed an ejection-seat and
had a bulletproof windscreen and one-piece
159
S U K H O I T-3 A N D PT-7
frameless canopy sliding to the rear. Among
the comprehensive avionics suite were two
items with antennas in the top of the fin, the
slots for the Svod (Arch) navaid and SOD-57
transponder and the RSIU-5V inside the dielectric fin cap. The wings were plumbed for
drop tanks, to be carried on pylons only just inboard of the instrument booms. The planned
armament was two guns (Sukhoi assumed
the NR-30), and steel blast panels were pro-
vided in the sides of the forward fuselage. Before the T-3 was completed the guns were replaced by missiles. The intended weapon was
the K-6, to be carried on interfaces attached
where the tanks would have been.
The PT-7 differed mainly in having an arearuled fuselage, with a visibly waisted middle
section, and a new ranging radar with a pointed downward-inclined radome projecting
from the bottom of the nose. Other differences
included unperforated airbrakes and a revised

fin-cap antenna which extended around the
top of the slightly shortened rudder.
These aircraft were the first in what proved
to be a long succession of prototype and experimental aircraft in the search for the best
interceptor. This underscored the Soviet
Union's determination to accept nothing but
the best, because any of these aircraft could
have been accepted for production.
Dimensions (T-3)
Span
8.7 m
Length (inc instrument boom) 18.82 m
Wing area (net)
24.9 m!
28ft6!fln
61 ft m in
268.8ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (normal)
Maximum
7,490kg
9,060 kg
11,200kg
16,512 Ib
19,974 Ib
24,691 Ib
2,100 km/h
18km
1,440km
1,840km
1, 305 mph (Mach 1.98)

59,055 ft
895 miles
1,1 43 miles
1,100m
3,600 ft
Performance
Maximum speed
at 10 km (32,808 ft)
Service ceiling
(maximum)
Take-off and landing runs,
both about
Dimensions (PT-7)
Span
8.7m
Length (inc instrument boom) 18.82 m
Wing area (net)
24.9m2
28ft6^in
61 ft 8% in
268.8ft2
Weights
In each case approximately 150 kg (331 Ib) heavier than the T-3
Performance
Maximum speed
at 1 0 km (32,808 ft)
2,250 km/h
1 ,398 mph (Mach 2. 1 2)
Top: The T-3 at the 1956 Tushino Fly Past.

Bottom: PT-7 inlet.
160
S U K H O I T-3 A N D
PT-7
T-3
T-3
T-5
PT-7
161
SUKHOI
T-49
Sukhoi T-49
Purpose: To create a further-improved
interceptor.
Design Bureau: OKB-51 of P O Sukhoi,
Moscow.
In May 1958 the OKB-51 decided that, after
more than four years of effort, they had still
not found the best answer to the problem of
how to arrange the radar, air inlet(s) and armament of a single-engined supersonic interceptor. It was recognized that guided missiles
would be carried externally, probably under
the wings, leaving the nose free for radar, but
the engine inlet still posed a problem. The
PT-8 and T-47 had large radars centred in a
nose inlet, and this was considered to degrade the aerodynamics. Accordingly a new
arrangement was devised, and the OKB conveniently were able to graft it on to the incomplete T-39 (T-3 derivative). The result
thus received the designation T-49. By June

1958 work on the T-39 had been stopped, and
this project was transferred as a test-bed
to the Central Institute of Aviation Motors.
Conversion to the T-49 was completed by October 1958. In 1959 M Goncharov was appointed to supervise flight testing, but the T-49
remained on the ground - much of the time
being used for various tests - until in January
1960 it was flown by Anatoly Koznov. He reported outstanding acceleration and good allround performance, but by this time aircraft
in this class had been overtaken by later technology. In April 1960 the T-49 was damaged in
an inflight accident, and though it was repaired it never flew again.
The T-49 was by virtue of its ancestry very
similar to the simpler versions of T-4 family
aircraft such as the production Su-9. Like that
aircraft it was intended to be armed with two
guided missiles carried on pylons under the

outer wings, but these would have been of
the K-8 type as carried by the Su-11. The large
fixed radome was uncompromised by the inlets, which were located well back on each
side. In side elevation each inlet was vertical,
seen from the front it formed a 90 segment
curved round the side of the fuselage, and in
plan it was swept back at 60. To match pressure recovery over the whole range of flight
Mach numbers the inner wall was made variable in angle and throat area. The intention
was to make the whole inlet system isentropic (causing no change in entropy) to achieve
maximum compression of the airflow. Like
several other Sukhoi designs of the period
there were two vertical doors in each side
of the fuselage at Frame 7 to spill excess
air from the ducts. The engine was a Lyul'ka
AL-7F-100, with a dry rating of 6,900kg
(15,212 Ib) and maximum afterburning thrust
of 9,900kg (21,82515). This was achieved
without the need for the injection of water,
the T-39's rear-fuselage water tank being replaced by one for fuel. Other features included steel doubler plates left over from the T-39
near where gun muzzles would have been
had they been fitted, tailplanes fitted with
anti-flutter masses and driven over the exceptional angular range +97-16, and flaps
whose trailing-edge roots were cut away
at 45, which was also a feature of the production Su-11.
This promising aircraft was overtaken by
galloping technology.
Dimensions (Broadly similar to PT-7)
Length
19.8m
No other data.
64 ft m in
This page and opposite top: Three views of T-49.
1G2
SUKHOI
T-49
T-49
163
SUKHOI
P-l
Suk hoi PI
Purpose: To create a more capable

interceptor for the IA-PVO (manned airdefence aviation).
Moscow.
In December 1954 the MAP (Ministry of Aviation Industry) requested studies of a new
fighter, called P (Perekhvatchik, interceptor).
Studies embraced single- and two-seat aircraft armed with every combination of guns,
rockets and guided missiles, and with nine
types of afterburning turbojet. On 19th January 1955 the Council of Ministers ordered
from Sukhoi prototypes of the P-l powered by
a single AL-9 and the P-2 powered by two
VK-11 engines. Mockups were reviewed in
late 1955, and construction of the P-l was authorised, the P-2 being abandoned in early
1956. OKB-51's factory constructed the single
164
P-l from August 1956. At a late stage it was

recognized that the chosen engine would not
be ready in time, and the aircraft was redesigned for an engine of rather less thrust in
order to get it airborne. It was taken to the
OKB's flight-test station on 10th June 1957,
and was flown there by Nikolai Korovushkin
on 12th July 1957. He was joined by Eduard
Elyan, and Factory Testing was completed on
22nd September 1958. The intended engine
never did become available, and Sukhoi
failed to obtain an alternative (the R-15B-300
went instead to the T-37). The P-l was transferred to the experimental category and finally abandoned.
Intended for a more powerful engine, the
Lyul'ka AL-9 with an afterburning thrust of 10
tonnes (22,046Ib), the P-l was thus larger
than all the other Sukhoi aircraft of its generation. The wing was scaled up from the earli-
Three views of P-1.
er PT-8, which had introduced the feature of

a dogtooth discontinuity in the leading edge
to create a powerful vortex at large angles of
attack to keep flow attached over the upper
surface. Unlike the PT-8 the leading-edge
sweep was reduced at a point ahead of
aileron mid-span from 60 to 55. Otherwise
the wing followed Sukhoi practice with rectangular slotted flaps, sharply tapered
ailerons terminating inboard of the tips, landing gears retracting between Spars 1 and 2
and integral tanks ahead of Spar 1 and between Spars 2 and 3. The large fuselage was
exceptionally complex. In the nose was the
single dish antenna of the Pantera (panther)
search and fire-control radar, with the multifunction instrumentation boom projecting
from the tip. With this aircraft Sukhoi gave up
SUKHOI
P-l
P-l (Note: one side view states that

the rockets were the 70mm NRS-70).
165
S U K H O I P-l / S U K H O I T-37
trying to put the air inlet in the nose, and the
radome formed the entire nose of the aircraft.
Next came the bay housing the radar's pressurized container, around which was the
main armament. After many changes this
comprised five bays, each closed by a rapidaction door, each housing ten ARS-57 57mm
spin-stabilized rockets. Upon automatic command by the fire-control system, the rockets
were either rippled in rapid sequence or fired
in a single salvo, the doors quickly hingeing
inwards from the front and the rocket gases
being discharged through doors at the rear
immediately ahead of Frame 8 (the front
pressure bulkhead of the cockpit). Next came
the nose landing gear, with a K-283 wheel
with 570 x 140mm tyre, retracting to the rear,
under the floor of the cockpit. The latter was
of course pressurized, and accommodated
the pilot and radar operator on tandem KS-1
ejection-seats under canopies hinged upwards from the rear. Next came the lateral engine air inlets, which broke new ground in
being circular (as they were cut back at a
Mach angle of 45 they were actually ellipses),
standing slightly away from the fuselage to
avoid swallowing boundary-layer air, and
housing a half-cone centrebody axially translated to front or rear according to flight Mach
number. Downstream the air ducts, and thus
the fuselage outer walls, curved sharply inwards to form the common tube feeding the
engine. This gave area-rule flow over the
wings (an account stating that this aircraft
was not area-ruled is mistaken). Additional

non-integral tanks occupied the space between the ducts, with piping in a dorsal spine
linking the canopies to the fin (a new feature
for Su aircraft). The engine was the well-tried
AL-7F, rated at 6,850kg (15,101 Ib) dry and
8,950kg (19,731 Ib) with afterburner. At double Frames 36/36A the tail could be removed.
The tail was similar to that of other Sukhoi
prototypes of the era. So were the three hydraulic systems, the two flight-control systems serving a BU-49 power unit for the
rudder, a BU-51 driving the one-piece
tailplanes (this irreversible drive rendered
anti-flutter masses unnecessary) and a BU-52
with rod linkages to the ailerons. The autopilot system used the AP-28 on the tailplanes
and AP-39 laterally. The primary hydraulic
system also drove the landing gear, the main
units having KT-72 wheels with l,000x
280mm tyres, and the rocket doors, canopies,
inlet centrebodies, flaps and (according to
documents, though these do not appear on
drawings and cannot be seen in photographs) three airbrakes on the rear fuselage. Another puzzle is that one document
mentions two NR-30 guns under the nose
(one on each side of the bottom rocket compartment, and these are shown in one drawing), while another states that 'in the wing
root was an armament section', while two
documents state that the main armament
comprised two K-7 (replaced by K-8) guided
missiles hung on underwing pylons. The lat-
ter would have been outboard, ahead of the

ailerons. Another document states that there
was provision for an external tank under the
fuselage, but this would have been difficult to
accommodate because of the landing-gear
doors and telemetry antenna. Other avionics
included RSIU-4V radio, SPU-2 intercom, Gorizont (horizon) guidance and data link,
SRZO-2 IFF, SOD-57M transponder, Sirena-2
(siren) passive warning receiver, ARK-51
ADF, MRP-56P marker receiver, GIK-1 and
AGI-1 navaids, RVU radio altimeter and the
RSBN-2 tactical landing guidance.
This complex aircraft never received the
intended engine.
the programme and ordered that the T-37

should be scrapped. The role was temporarily met by the Tu-128 and in full by the
MiG-25P.
Though derived from the T-3 the T-37 was
an entirely new aircraft which, because of
aerodynamic guidance by CAHI (TsAGI) and
the use of the same type of engine, had more
in common with the MiG Ye-150. The T-3A-9
system comprised this aircraft plus the Looch
(ray) ground control system, the ground and
airborne radars, a Barometr-2 data link,
Kremniy-2M (silicon) NPP (sight) system and
two Mikoyan K-9 (R-38) missiles. The aircraft
had a wing which was basically a strengthened version of the T-3 wing, with no dogtooth and with anhedral increased to 3 (ie,
-3 dihedral). Each flap could be extended
out on two rails to 25 and did not have an
inner corner cut off at an angle. A more important change was that to avoid scraping the
tail on take-off or landing the main landing
gears were lengthened, which meant that the
wheels were housed at an oblique angle in
the bottom of the fuselage. The fuselage was

totally new, with a ruling diameter of 1.7m
(12ft 7in). This was dictated by the Tumanskii
R-l5-300 afterburning turbojet, with dry and
reheat ratings of 6,840kg (15,080 Ib) and
10,150kg (22,380 Ib) respectively. The TsP-1
radar was housed in a precisely contoured
radome whose external profile formed an Oswatitsch centrebody with three cone angles
to focus Shockwaves on the sharp inlet lip.
The whole centrebody was translated to front
and rear on rails carried by upper and lower
inlet struts. Surplus air could be spilt through
two powered doors in each duct outer wall at
Frame 8. The pressurized cockpit had a KS-2
seat and a vee windscreen ahead of a lowdrag upward-hinged canopy with a metalskinned fixed rear fairing. The detachable
rear fuselage was made mainly of welded titanium, and terminated in an ejector surrounding the engine's own variable nozzle.
Initially a sliding ring, this ejector was
changed to an eight-flap design during prototype manufacture. Ram air cooling inlets
Dimensions
Span
Length
(incl instrument boom)
Wing area (gross)
(net)
9.816m
32 ft n in
21.83m
44m 2
28.1 nf
71 ft 71* in
474ft 2
302 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
7,710kg
10.6 tonnes
11,550kg
16,997 Ib
23,369 Ib
25,463 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
at 15 km (49,2 13 ft)
Time to climb to 15km
Service ceiling
Landing speed
2,050 km/h
2.7 min
19,500m
1,250km
220 km/h
1,274 mph (Mach 1.93)

(49,213 ft)
63,976 ft
777 miles
137 mph
Sukhoi T-37
Purpose: To meet an IA-PVO demand for a
high-performance automated interception
system.
Moscow.
In late 1957 the threat of USAF strategic
bombers able to cruise at Mach 2 (B-58)
and Mach 3 (B-70) demanded a major upgrade in the PVO defence system. At the start
of 1958 a requirement was issued for manned
interceptors with a speed of 3,000km/h
(l,864mph) at heights up to 27km (88,583ft).
Mikoyan and Sukhoi responded. Creation of
the T-3A-9 interception system was authorised by the Council of Ministers on 4th June
1958. The air vehicle portion of this system
was a derivative of the T-3 designated T-3A,
and with the OKB-51 factory designation T-37.
Detail design of this aircraft took place in the
first half of 1959. In February 1960 the single
flight article was approaching completion
when without warning the GKAT (State Committee for Aviation Equipment) terminated
166
SUKHOI
were provided at Frames 25 and 29, and in the
detachable rear section were four door-type
airbrakes. Under this section were two radial
underfins, each incorporating a steel
bumper. Pivoted 140mm (51/2in) below midlevel the tailplanes had 5 anhedral and did
not need anti-flutter rods as they were irreversibly driven over a range of 2. Each main
landing gear had levered-suspension carrying
a plate-braked KT-89 wheel with an 800 x
200mm tyre. The long nose gear had a powersteered lower section with a levered-suspension K-283 wheel with a 570x140mm tyre,
and retracted backwards. A total of 4,800
litres (1,056 Imperial gallons) of fuel could be
housed in three fuselage tanks (No 3 being of
bladder type) and Nos 4 and 5 between wing
spars 2 and 3. Provision was made for a 930
litre (204.6 Imperial gallon) drop tank. Missile
pylons could be attached ahead of the
ailerons. Avionics included the radar, RSIU5A vhf/uhf with fin-cap antennas, RSBN-2
Svod (arch) navaid and SOD-57M transponder (both with fin slot antennas), Put (course)
longer-range navaid, MRP-56P marker receiver, SRZO-2 Khrom-Nikel (chrome-nickel) IFF,
Lazur (azure) beam/beacon receiver of the
Looch/Vozdukh (rising) ground control system, KSI compass system and a ventral blade
antenna for the flight-test telemetry.
Like the rival Mikoyan Ye-150 series (which
were produced more quickly) this weapon
system was overtaken by later designs.
Dimensions
Span
Length overall
Wing area (gross)
(net)
8.56 m
1 9.4 1 3 m
34 m2
24.69 m2
28 ft 1 in
63ft8!iin
366 ft2
265.8ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
7,260kg
1 0, 750 kg
12 tonnes
1 6,005 Ib
23,699 Ib
26,455 Ib
Max speed at 1 5 km (49,2 1 3 ft) 3,000 km/h
Service ceiling
25-27 km
Range
1,500km
(with external tank)
2,000 km
T-37
T-37
1,864 mph (Mach 2.8)

82,02 I-88,583 ft
932 miles
1,243 miles
Two artist's impressions of a T-37.
167
S U K H O I T-58VD
Sukhoi T-58VD
Purpose: To provide full-scale STOL jet-lift
data to support the T6-1.
Moscow.
Early history of the T6-1 (see page 178) revolved around how best to create a formidable tactical aircraft with a short field length.
One of the obvious known methods of making a STOL (short take-off and landing) aircraft was to fit it with additional jet engines
arranged vertically to help lift the aircraft at
low speeds. In January 1965 the T-58D-1, the
first prototype of what was to become the Su15 interceptor, was taken off its normal flight
programme and returned to an OKB factory.
Here it was modified as the T-58VD, the designation meaning Vertikalnyye Dvigateli, vertical engines. Managed by R Yarmarkov, who
had been leading engineer throughout T-58D
testing, ground running trials of the VD began
in December 1966. This work required an
enormous test installation built at the OKB-51
which used a 15,000hp NK-12 turboprop to
blast air at various speeds past the T-58VD
while it performed at up to full power on all
five engines. It was mounted on a special
168
platform fitted with straingauges to measure

the thrust, drag and apparent weight. When
these tests were completed, the T-58VD was
taken to the LII at Zhukovskii where it began
its flight-test programme on 6th June 1966.
Initial testing was handled by Yevgenii
Solov'yov, who was later joined by the OKB's
Vladimir Ilyushin. On 9th June 1967 this aircraft was flown by Solov'yov at the Domodyedovo airshow, where NATO called it
'Flagon-B'. Its basic test programme finished
two weeks later. It then briefly tested the ogival (convex curved) radome used on later Su15 aircraft and the UPAZ inflight-refuelling
pod. It was then transferred to the Moscow
Aviation Institute where it was used as an educational aid.
The original T-58D-1 was built as an outstanding interceptor for the IA-PVO air-defence force, with Mach 2.1 speed and
armament of K-8M (R-98) missiles. Powered
by two R-l 1F2S-300 turbojets (as fitted to the
MiG-21 at that time), each with a maximum
afterburning rating of 6,175kg (13,6131b), it
had pointed delta wings with a leading-edge
angle of 60, fitted with blown flaps. The
wings looked very small in comparison with
the fuselage, which had backswept rectangular variable-geometry engine inlets on each
side. To convert it into the T-58VD a completely new centre fuselage was spliced in.
This used portions of the original air ducts to
the main engines but separated them by new
centreline bays for three lift jets. The front bay
housed a single RD-36-35 turbojet of
P A Kolesov design with a thrust of 2,300kg
(5,1801b). One of the wing main-spar bulkheads came next, behind which was a bay
housing two more RD-36-35 engines in tandem. Each bay was fireproof and fitted with
all the support systems shown to be needed
in previous jet-lift aircraft. On top were large
louvred inlet doors each hinged upward at
the rear, while underneath were pilot-controlled cascade vanes for vectoring the lift-jet
thrust fore and aft. Another important modification was to redesign the outer wing from
just inboard of the fence, reducing the leading-edge sweep to 45 and extending the
aileron to terminate just inboard of the new
squared-off tip. Apart from the missile pylons
This page and opposite top: Views of T-58VD, one
showing its final use at the MAI.
S U K H O I T-58VD / S U K H O I S - 2 2 I
military equipment was removed, and a new
telemetry system was fitted with a distinctive
twin-blade antenna under the nose.
The jet-lift conversion reduced take-off
speed and ground run from 390km/h
(242mph) and 1,170m (3,839ft) to a less frantic 290km/h (ISOmph) and only 500m
(1,640ft). Landing speeds and distances were
reduced from 315km/h (196mph) and
1,000m (3,281ft) to 240km/h (149mph) and
600m (1,969ft). This was achieved at the expense of reduced internal fuel capacity and
sharply increased fuel consumption at takeoff and landing. Moreover, it was discovered
during initial flight testing that the longitudinal
locations of the three lift engines had been
miscalculated. Operation of the front RD-3635 caused a nose-up pitching moment which
the pilot could not counteract at speeds
below about 320km/h (199mph), so this lift
engine could not be used on landings.
T-58VD
Sukhoi S-22I
Purpose: To modify a tactical fighter to have
a variable-sweep wing.
Moscow.
Spurred by the USAF/USN TFX programme,
Sukhoi (and later Mikoyan) researched aircraft with variable sweepback, also called
VG, variable-geometry, 'swing wings'. Extensive model testing began at CAHI (TsAGI) in
1963. In early 1965 Sukhoi OKB Deputy
N G Zyrin was appointed Chief Designer of
the project, with V Krylov team leader. To test
full-scale wings the OKB-51 factory selected a
production Su-7BM which it had already been
using for a year to test other advances. L Moiseyshchikov was appointed chief flight-test
engineer. Modification of the aircraft took
place in January-July 1966, and Vladimir
Ilyushin made the first flight on 2nd August
1966. Later LII pilots evaluated the aircraft,
and on 9th July 1967 OKB pilot Evgeny Kukushev flew it publicly at the Domodyedovo air
display. Testing was completed at the end of
1967, and though this was clearly an interim

aircraft the Council of Ministers decreed that
series production should begin in 1969. Unexpectedly, derived versions remained in production to 1991, over 2,000 being delivered.
It was by no means certain that an existing
wing could be modified with variable sweepback. The problem was to minimise weight
growth whilst at the same time almost eliminating longitudinal shift in centre of pressure
(wing lift) and centre of gravity. The original
wing had the considerable leading-edge
angle of 63, matched to the supersonic maximum speed attainable. The intention was to
enable the wing to pivot forward, to increase
span and lift at low speeds. Doing so would
naturally move the centre of pressure forwards, and at the same time it would also
move the centre of gravity forwards. The objective was to make these cancel out. This
was achieved by pivoting only the outer 4.5m
(14ft 9in), placing the pivots close behind the
main landing gear in a region well able to diffuse the concentrated loads into the struc-
ture. Each outer panel was driven hydraulically forward to a minimum sweep of 30. Following tunnel testing of models, three
sections of slat were added over almost the
whole span of each pivoted leading edge. Inboard of the pivot the existing fence was
made deeper and extended under the leading edge to serve as a stores pylon (plumbed
for a tank). Among structural changes, the
upper and lower skins were each reinforced
between the fence and flap by pairs of axial
stiffeners (thus, eight in all).
Though empty weight was increased from
8,410kg (18,541 Ib) to the figure given below,
and internal fuel was reduced by 404 litres (89
Imperial gallons), flying at 30 sweep extended both range and endurance, and enabled
much heavier external loads to be lifted from
short fields. Pilots reported very favourably on
all aspects of handling, except for the fact that
at extreme angles of attack there was no stallwarning buffet.
169
S U K H O I S - 2 2 I / T-4, 100
Dimensions
Span (63)
(30)
Length overall
Wing area (63)
(30)
10.03m
13.68m
1 9.03 m
34.45m2
38.49m2
32 ft 10% in
44ftl0 3 /4in
62 ft 5!4 in
370.8ft2
414.3ft 2
Weights
Empty
9,480kg
20,899 Ib
No further data, but abundant data exists for production successors.
Two views of the S-22I.
Sukhoi T-4, 100

Purpose: To create a Mach-3 strategic
weapons system.
Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow, with
major subcontract to TMZ, Tushino
Machine-Building Factory.
This enormous project was triggered in December 1962 by the need to intercept the B-70
(or RS-70), 'A-ll' (A-12, later SR-71), Hound
Dog and Blue Steel. At an early stage the mission was changed to strategic reconnaissance and strike for use against major surface
targets. It was also suggested that the basic air
vehicle could form the starting point for the
design of an advanced SST. From the outset
there were bitter arguments. Initially these
centred on whether the requirement should
be met by a Mach-2 aluminium aircraft or
whether the design speed should be Mach 3,
requiring steel and/or titanium. In January
170
1963 Mach 3 was selected, together with a design range at high altitude on internal fuel of
6,000km (3,728 miles). General Constructors
Sukhoi, Tupolev and Yakovlev competed,
with the T-4, Tu-135 and Yak-33 respectively.
The Yak was too small (in the TSR.2 class)
and did not meet the requirements, and
though it looked like the B-70 the Tupolev
was an aluminium aircraft designed for Mach
2.35. From the start Sukhoi had gone for Mach
3, and its uncompromising design resulted
in its being chosen in April 1963. This was
despite the implacable opposition not only
of Tupolev but also of Sukhoi's own deputy
Yevgenii Ivanov and many of the OKB's
department heads, who all thought this demanding project an unwarranted departure
from tactical fighters. Over the next 18 months
their opposition thwarted a plan for the former Lavochkin OKB and factory to assist the
T-4, and in its place the Boorevestnik (stormy

petrel) OKB and the TMZ factory were appointed as Sukhoi branch offices, the Tushino
plant handling all prototype construction. A
special WS commission studied the project
from 23rd May to 3rd June 1963, and a further
commission studied the refined design in
February-May 1964. By this time the T-4 was
the biggest tunnel-test project at CAHI
(TsAGI) and by far the largest at the Central Institute of Aviation Motors. The design was
studied by GKAT (State aircraft technical
committee) from June 1964, and approved by
it in October of that year. By this time it had
outgrown its four Tumanskii R-15BF-300 or
Zubets RD-17-15 engines and was based on
four Kolesov RD-36-41 engines. In January
1965 it was decided to instal these all close together as in the B-70, instead of in two pairs.
Mockup review took place from 17th January
S U K H O I T-4, 100
to 2nd February 1966, with various detachable weapons and avionics pods being offered. Preliminary design was completed in
June 1966, and because its take-off weight
was expected to be 100 tonnes the Factory
designation 100 was chosen, with nickname
Sotka (one hundred). The first flight article
was designated 101, and the static-test specimen 100S. The planned programme then included the 102 (with a modified structure
with more composites and no brittle alloys)
for testing the nav/attack system, the 103 and
104 for live bomb and missile tests and determination of the range, the 105 for avionics integration and the 106 for clearance of the
whole strike/reconnaissance system. On 30th
December 1971 the first article, Black 101,
was transferred from Tushino to the LII
Zhukovskii test airfield. On 20th April 1972 it
was accepted by the flight-test crew, Vladimir
Ilyushin and navigator Nikolai Alfyorov, and
made its first flight on 22nd August 1972. The
gear was left extended on Flights 1 through 5,
after which speed was gradually built up to
Mach 1.28 on Flight 9 on 8th August 1973.
There were no serious problems, though the
aft fuselage tank needed a steel heat shield
and there were minor difficulties with the hydraulics. The WS request for 1970-75 included 250 T-4 bombers, for which tooling was
being put in place at the world's largest
aircraft factory, at Kazan. After much further
argument, during which Minister P V Dement'yev told Marshal Grechko he could have his
enormous MiG-23 order only if the T-4 was
abandoned, the programme was cancelled.
Black 101 flew once more, on 22nd January
1974, to log a total of lOhrs 20min. Most of the
second aircraft, article 102, which had been
about to fly, went to the Moscow Aviation Institute, and Nos 103-106 were scrapped. Back
in 1967 the Sukhoi OKB had begun working
on a totally redesigned and significantly more
advanced successor, the T-4MS, or 200. Termination of the T-4 resulted in this even more
remarkable project also being abandoned. In
1982 Aircraft 101 went to the Monino museum. The Kazan plant instead produced the
Tu-22MandTu-160.
In all essentials the T-4 was a clone on
a smaller scale of the North American B-70.
The structure was made of high-strength titanium alloys VT-20, VT-21L and VT-22, stainless steels VIS-2 and VIS-5, structural steel
VKS-210 and, for fuel and hydraulic piping,
soldered VNS-2 steel. The wing, with 0 anhedral, had an inboard leading-edge angle of
75 44', changed over most of the span to
60 17'. Thickness/chord ratio was a remark-
Four views of the T-4 NolOl
171
S U K H O I T-4,
100
able 2.7 per cent. The leading edge was fixed.

The flight controls were driven by irreversible
power units in a quadruplex FBW (fly-bywire) system with full authority but automatic manual reversion following failure of any
two channels. They comprised four elevens
on each wing, flapped canard foreplanes and
a two-part rudder. The fuselage had a circular
diameter of 2.0m (6ft 6%in). At airspeeds
below 700km/h (435mph) the nose could be
drooped 12 12' by a screwjack driven by hydraulic motors to give the pilot a view ahead.
Behind the pilot (Ilyushin succeeded in getting the proposed control wheel replaced by
a stick) was the navigator and systems manager. Both crew had a K-36 ejection-seat,
fired up through the normal entrance hatch,
and aircraft 101 also had a pilot periscope. Behind the pressure cabin was a large refrigerated fuselage section devoted to electronics.
Next came the three fuel tanks, filled with 57
tonnes (125,661 Ib) of specially developed
RG-1 naphthyl fuel similar to JP-7. Each tank
had a hydraulically driven turbopump, and
the fuel system was largely automated. A production T-4 would have had provision for a
large drop tank under each wing, and for air
refuelling. Behind the aft tank were systems
compartments, ending with a rectangular
tube housing quadruple cruciform braking
parachutes. Under the wing was the enor1: Hinged nose
2: Pilot's cockpit
3: Entry hatch
4: Foreplane
5: Navigator's cockpit
6: Entry hatch
7: Pressurized electronics bay

8: Forward fuel tank
9: Mechanical, electrical and

fuel services
10: Main fuel tanks
11: Aft fuel tank
12: Rear spar
13: Elevon
14: Fin
15: Tail trimming tank
16: Fin antennas
mous box housing the air-inlet systems and

the four single-shaft RD-36-41 turbojets, each
with an afterburning rating of 16,000kg
(35,273 Ib). An automatic FBW system governed the engines and their three-section
variable nozzles and variable-geometry inlets. Each main landing gear had four twintyred wheels and retracted forwards, rotating
90 to lie on its side outboard of the engine
duct. The nose gear had levered suspension
to two similar tyres, with wheel brakes, and
used the hydraulic steering as a shimmy
damper. It retracted backwards into a bay
between the engine ducts. The four autonomous hydraulic systems were filled with
KhS-1 (similar to Oronite 70) and operated
at the exceptional pressure of 280kg/cm2
(3,980 lb/in2). A liquid oxygen system was provided, together with high-capacity environmental systems which rejected heat to both
air and fuel. The crew wore pressure suits.
The main electrical system was generated as
400-Hz three-phase at 220/115 V by four oilcooled alternators rated at 60 kVA. Aircraft
101 never received its full astro-inertial navigation system, nor its planned 'complex' of
electronic-warfare, reconnaissance and
weapon systems. The latter would have included two Kh-45 cruise missiles, developed
by the Sukhoi OKB, with a range of 1,500km
(932 miles).
Like the B-70 this was a gigantic programme which broke much new ground (the
OKB said '200 inventions, or 600 if you include
manufacturing processes') yet which was finally judged to have been not worth the cost.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
22.00m
44.50m
295.7m2
72 ft 2% in
146ft
3,183ft2
Weights
Empty (as rolled out)
(equipped)
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
54,600kg
55,600kg
114,400kg
1 36 tonnes
1 20,370 Ib
122,575 Ib
252,205 Ib
299,824 Ib
3,200 km/h
l,150km/h
24km
at 3,000 knYh
6,000 km
7,000km
1,988 mph (Mach 3.01)

715 mph (Mach 0.94)
78,740 ft
1,864 mph (Mach 2.82)
3,728 miles
4,350 miles
1,000m
260 km/h
950m
3,281 ft
161.6 mph
3,117ft
Design Performance
Max and cruising speed
at sea level
Service ceiling
Range
(clean)
(drop tanks)
Take-off run
(normal loaded weight)
Landing speed/run
with parachutes
17: Rudder power units

18: Upper rudder
19: Brake-parachute compartment
20: Nol engine
21: Left main landing gear
22: Centroplan (centre section of wing)
23: Nose landing-gear door
24: Steerable nose landing gear
25: Intake splitter
T-4 (100)
172
SUKHOI
100L
Sukhoi 100L
Purpose: To test wing forms for the 100
aircraft.
Another of the aircraft used to provide research support for the 100, or T-4, was this
modified Su-9 interceptor. In the period 196670 this aircraft was fitted with a succession of
different wings. Most testing was done at LII
Zhukovskii.
The 100L was originally a test Su-9, with
side number (callsign) Red 61 (the same as
for the T6-1, and also for the first two-seat
MiG-21, but this had finished testing at LII before the 100L arrived). The aircraft was fitted
with telemetry with a diagonal blade antenna
under the nose, but apparently not with a cine
camera at the top of the fin. The various test
wings were manufactured by adding to the
existing Su-9 wing box, in most cases ahead
of the wing box only. The first experimental
wing was little changed in plan view: the wing
was given an extended sharp leading edge
which extended the tip to a point. Three further wings with sharp leading edges were
tested, as well as one with a 'blunt leading

edge'. This meant that it was the sharply
swept inboard leading edge that was blunt,
because at least one of the wings was fitted
with a leading edge which in four stages increased in sweepback from tip to root to
meet the fuselage at 75. All the test wings had
perforated leading edges from which smoke
trails could be emitted. Further testing was
done with a sharp-edged horizontal tail.
Results from this aircraft were aerodynamic, not structural, but they materially assisted
the design of the 100.
100L'Red 61'test bed.
100L, plan view showing first and third wings.
100L
173
S U K H O I 100L / 100LDU
Two views of the 100L with different wings.
Sukhoi 100LDU
Purpose: To flight-test canard surfaces.
Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow
As explained in the history of the T-4, this
enormous project required back-up research
right across Soviet industry. The Sukhoi OKB
itself took on the task of investigating the

proposed canard surfaces. As the only vehicle
immediately available was a two-seat Su-7U,
with a maximum Mach number of 2 instead
of 3, the resulting aircraft - with designation
100LDU - ceased to be directly relevant to the
T-4 and became instead a general canard

research vehicle. It was assigned to LIl-MAP
test pilot (and future Cosmonaut) Igor Volk,
and was tested in 1968-71.
The basic Su-7U, powered by an AL-7FI200 with a maximum afterburning rating of
10,100kg (22,282 Ib), was subjected to minor
modifications to the rudder and brakingparachute installation, and was fitted with
fully powered canard surfaces on each side
of the nose. These were of cropped delta
shape, with a greater span and area than
those of contemporary experimental MiG
aircraft, and with anti-flutter rods which were
longer and nearer to the tips.
This aircraft fulfilled all test objectives,
though the numerical data were of only
marginal assistance to the T-4/100 design
team.
100LDU
174
SLIKHOI 02-10, OR L02-10
Sukhoi 02-10, or L02-10

Purpose: To investigate direct side-force
control.
In 1969 this Su-9 was modified for the LII,
which wished to investigate the application of
direct side force. The LII had been concerned
at American research into direct lateral or vertical force which could enable a fighter to
rise, fall, move left or move right without
changing the aircraft's attitude. In other
words such an aircraft could keep pointing at
a target in front while it crabbed sideways (for
example). Testing began in 1972. In 1977 the
aircraft was returned to a Sukhoi OKB factory
and had the upper nose fin removed, testing
continuing as a joint LII/Su programme. It was
further modified in 1979.
Originally this aircraft was a production Su9 interceptor, though it never saw active service. In its first 02-10 form is had substantial
vertical fins added above and below the nose.
Each fin was pivoted at mid-chord and fully
powered. The pilot was able to cut the nose

fins out of his flight-control circuit, leaving
them fixed at zero incidence. When they
were activated, movement of his pedals
drove the fins in unison with each other and
in unison with the rudder. The two canard
fins moved parallel to the rudder, to cause the
aircraft to crab sideways. Each surface was of
cropped delta shape, with a lower aspect
ratio than the horizontal canards of the
S-22PDS. Compared with the lower fin the
upper surface had significantly greater height,
and it was mounted slightly further forward.
Each was fitted with an anti-flutter rod mass,
which during the course of the programme

was moved from 40 per cent of fin height (distance from root to tip) to 70 per cent. After the
02-10's first series of tests the upper nose fin
was removed (leaving its mounting spigot still
in place). Later a cine camera was installed
on the fin to record lateral tracking across the
ground, and in some of the later tests the
wings were fitted with smoke nozzles along
the leading edge, to produce visible streamlines photographed by a camera in a box immediately ahead of the radio antenna.
This aircraft generated useful information,
but the idea has never been put into practice.
Three different versions of L02-10 test-bed.
175
SUKHOI
T6-1
Sukhoi T6-1
Purpose: To create a superior tactical attack
bomber.
As noted in the story of the S-22I (S-32), publication of the formidable requirements for the
USAF's TFX programme spurred a response
by the USSR. These requirements called for
long range with a heavy bombload and the
ability to make a blind first-pass attack at supersonic speed at low level 'under the radar'.
There was obvious need to replace the IL-28
and Yak-28, and the task appeared to call for
either the use of a battery of special lift engines or a VG (variable-geometry, ie variablesweep) wing. Sukhoi OKB was entrusted with
this important task, and took a 'belt and braces'
approach. To get something flying quickly it
decided to put VG wings on the outstanding
Su-7B, resulting in the S-22I described previously. For the longer term it launched development of a new aircraft, the S-6. This was first
drawn in 1963, and it was to have a fixed
swept wing, two Metskvarichvili R-21F-300 engines each with a wet afterburning rating of
7,200kg (15,873 Ib), pilot and navigator seated
in tandem, and the Puma navigation and
weapon-delivery system. Five hardpoints
were to carry a load of 3 tonnes (6,614 Ib),
take-off weight being 20 tonnes (44,090Ib),
and maximum speed was to be l,400km/h
(870mph) at very low level and 2,500km/h
(l,553mph, Mach 2.35) at high altitude. Shorttake-off capability was to be provided by two
large take-off rockets. As a cover, and to assist
T6-1 as originally built
176
in obtaining funds more quickly, the S-6 was

redesignated T-58M to look like a member of
that interceptor family, but in 1964 it was terminated. This was partly because of intractible problems with the engine (see MiG
Ye-8), and partly because of the good progress
with the T-58VD (see previous). In early 1965
the S-6 was replaced by the T-6, later written
T6. This was a significantly larger and more
powerful aircraft, even surpassing the F - l l l ,
which was in production by then. After rollout
it was given the callsign Red 61 and first flown
by the chief test pilot, Vladimir S Ilyushin, on
2nd July 1967. It was fitted with a battery of lift
jets, as in the T-58VD, and it was immediately
found that (as before) these caused aerodynamic and control difficulties. In 1968 the R-27
main engines were removed and the complete rear fuselage and powerplant systems
modified to take the Lyul'ka AL-21F engine,
with a maximum afterburning rating of
11,200kg (24,691 Ib). To improve directional
stability the wingtips were tilted sharply down
in TSR.2 fashion, the anhedral being 72. Large
strakes were added on each side of the rear
fuselage, and the airbrakes deleted. To meet
the needs of radar designers the nose radome
was made shorter, with no significant effect
on drag, and over the years numerous flush
antennas and fairings appeared. Even after
the decision was taken to change the design
to have high-aspect-ratio 'swing wings' the T6-1
continued testing systems and equipment. In
1974, having made over 320 test flights, it was
retired to the WS Museum at Monino.
In fact, the design of the T6-1 had been even

more strongly influenced by the British TSR.2,
with a fixed-geometry delta wing of short span
and large area and fitted with powerful blown
flaps. Before the first aircraft, the T6-1, was
built the wing was modified with the leadingedge angle reduced from 60 to 45 outboard
of the flaps, ahead of the conventional
ailerons. As originally built, the large fuselage
housed two Khachaturov (Tumanskii KB) R27F2-300 engines each with a wet afterburning rating of 9,690kg (21,3651b), fed by
sharp-edged rectangular side inlets with an
inner wall variable in angle and throat area.
Downstream of the inlets the fuselage had a
broad box-like form able to generate a considerable fraction of the required lift at supersonic speed at low level. Ahead of the inlets
was an oval-section forward fuselage housing
two K-36D seats side-by-side, as in the F-lll,
an arrangement which was considered an advantage in a first-pass attack and also to assist
conversion training in a dual version. There
were left and right canopies each hinged upward from the broad spine downstream. The
width of the cockpit left enough space between the engine ducts for a considerable fuel
tankage as well as two pairs of RD-36-35 lift
jets, installed in a single row as in the T-58VD.
No attempt was made to bleed any engines to
provide air for reaction-jet controls, because
the T6-1 was not designed to be airborne at
low airspeeds. The one-piece tailplanes were
in fact tailerons, driven individually by KAU125 power units to provide control in roll as
well as pitch. For operation from unpaved
strips the levered-suspension main landing
gears had twin wheels with tyres 900 x
230mm, retracting forwards into bays under
the air ducts, while the steerable nose gear
again had twin wheels, 600 x 200mm, with
mudguards, retracting to the rear. At the extreme tail an airbrake was provided on each
side, requiring a cutaway inboard trailing
edge to the tailplanes, and between the jet
nozzles under the rudder was a cruciform
braking parachute. For the first time the avionics were regarded as a PNK, a totally integrated navigation and attack 'complex', and the
T6-1 played a major role in developing this. It
was fitted with four wing pylons with interfaces for a wide range of stores, as well as two
hardpoints inboard of the main-gear bays, the
maximum bombload being 5 tonnes
(ll,0201b). The production Su-24 has eight
hardpoints for loads up to 8 tonnes (17,637 Ib).
The T6-1 was a stepping-stone to a family of
powerful and formidable aircraft which in
2000 are still in service with Russia and
Ukraine. Unquestionably, the lift jets were not
worth having.
S U K H O I T6-1
Dimensions
Span
Length (as modified)
Wing area
Weights
Empty not reported
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
The production Su-24MK
is cleared to
Performance
at high altitude
Take-off field length
(normal weight)
9.2m
23.2m
51m2
30 ft Kin
76ftP/4in
550 ft2
26,100kg
28 tonnes
57,540 Ib
61,728 Ib
39,700 kg
87,522 Ib
l,468km/h,
2,020 km/h,
912mph(Machl.2)
l,255mph(Machl.9)
350m
1,148ft
Top: T6-1 after

modification.
Above left, right and
below: Three views of
T6-1 as originally built
177
SUKHOI
T-10
SukhoiT-10
Purpose: To create a superior heavy fighter.
In 1969 the IA-PVO, the manned interceptor
defence force, issued a requirement for a totally new heavy interceptor. This was needed
to replace the Tu-128, Yak-28P and Su-15 in
defending the USSR against various cruise
missiles, as well as the F-l 11 and other new
Western fighters and tactical aircraft. A specific requirement was to combine long-range
standoff-kill capability with performance and
combat agility superior in a close dogfight to
any Western aircraft. The formal competition
was opened in 1971. Though Mikoyan and
Yakovlev were invited to participate, all the
running was made by Sukhoi OKB, which
was eager to move on from the T-4 and get a
new production aircraft. With Sukhoi himself
semi-retired, Yevgenii Ivanov was appointed
chief designer, with Oleg Samolovich deputy.
Sukhoi's two rival OKBs made proposals, but
did not receive contracts to construct prototype aircraft to meet this requirement (though
the standoff-kill demand was also addressed
by the later M1G-25P variants and MiG-31).
T10-1 as built
178
Sukhoi submitted two alternative proposals.

Both were broadly conventional single-seat
twin-engined aircraft with 'ogival Gothic'
wings (almost delta-shape but with a doublecurved leading edge) and horizontal tails, the
only new feature being twin vertical tails. One
had side air inlets with horizontal ramps,
while the other proposal had a fuselage
blended into a wing mounted underneath
and two complete propulsion systems
mounted under the wing. A detail was that
both had outstanding pilot view with a
drooped nose and bulged canopy. As the
wing was more akin to a delta than to a swept
wing the project was given the designation
T-l 0 in the T series (see T-3). The competitive
design review was won by Sukhoi in May
1972. CAHI (TsAGI) had tunnel-tested T-10
models from 1969, and the work built up each
year until 1974, demanding more tunnel testing than any previous Soviet aircraft except
the Tu-144. It was the unconventional configuration that was chosen, with the fuselage
tapering to nothing above the wing and being
replaced by large engine gondolas underneath. Drawings for the first prototype, the
T10-1, were issued in 1975. Construction was

handled by the OKB factory, except for wing
and tail surfaces which were made at the
OKB's associated huge production facility
named for Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin at
Komsomolsk-na-Amur in Siberia. Vladimir
Ilyushin began a successful flight-test programme on 20th May 1977. Investigation of
basic handling, including high-AOA (angle of
attack) flight, was completed in 38 flights by
late January 1978. Four wing fences were
added, together with anti-flutter rods on the
fins and tailplanes. Many further flights explored the FEW (fly-by-wire) flight controls
and, after fitting no fewer than seven hardpoints where pylons could be attached, the
weapons control system. Red 10 was finally
put on display in the Monino Museum. T10-2
began flying at the beginning of 1978, but a
software error led to unexplored resonance
which caused inflight breakup, killing Evgeny
Solov'yov. By 1978 the OKB was busy with
T10-3, the first prototype fitted with the definitive engine, and this was flown by Ilyushin on
23rd August 1979. In 1982 T10-3 was flown by
OKB pilot Nikolai Sadovnikov from a simulated
SUKHOI
aircraft-carrier ramp, and it later made hookequipped simulated carrier landings. T10-4,
first flown by Ilyushin on 31st October 1979,
tested the new engines and avionics. So great
was the need to test avionics that the Komsomolsk factory was contracted to build five
further prototypes. These were designated
T10-5, -6, -9, -10 and -11 (T10-7 and -8 were
significantly modified). These additional prototypes were generally similar to T10-3, apart
from the fact that the fins were canted outwards. The T10-5 flew in June 1980, and the
remainder were all on flight test by autumn
1982. Pavel Sukhoi died on 15th September
1975, and was succeeded as General Constructor by Mikhail P Simonov. Soon after he
took over, the first detailed information on the
McDonnell Douglas F-15 became available.
Computer simulations found that the T-10 did
not meet the requirement that it should be
demonstrably superior to the USAF aircraft.
Simonov ordered what amounted to a fresh
start, telling the author 'We kept the wheels
and ejection-seat'. Designated T-10S, from
Seriynii, production, the new fighter can only
be described as brilliant. Ever since the first
pre-series example, the T10-17, was flown by
Ilyushin on 20th April 1981 it has been the
yardstick against which other fighters are
judged. An enormous effort was made by Nil
using T10-17 and T10-22 to clear the redesigned aircraft for production. The first true
series aircraft, designated Su-27, was flown at
Komsomolsk in November 1982.
The T-10 wing had 0 dihedral, and a symmetric profile with a ruling thickness/chord
ratio of 3.5 per cent, rising to 5 per cent at the
root. The leading edge was fixed. It left the
fuselage with a sharp radius and with a
sweep angle of 79, curving round to 41 over
the outer panels and then curving back to
Kiichemann tips. The main torsion box had
three spars and one-piece machined skins.
Most of the interior was pressurized and
formed an integral tank, while high-strength
ribs carried armament suspension points.
The oval-section fuselage forward section
was designed to accommodate the intended
large radar, followed by the cockpit with a
sliding canopy. Behind this came an equipment bay, followed by a humpbacked
'forecastle tank' and then a broad wing centre-section tank which could be considered
as part of both the wing and fuselage. A further tank was placed in the keel beam between the engines. The latter were of the
Lyul'ka AL-21F-3 type, each with an afterburning rating of 11,200kg (24,691 Ib). Each
was placed in a large nacelle or gondola
under the wing, tilted outward because of the
inboard wing's sharp taper in thickness. Each
engine air duct was fed by a wedge inlet behind the leading edge, standing well away
under the wing's underskin to avoid swallow-
ing boundary-layer air. Each inlet contained a

variable upper ramp, with auxiliary side inlets
for use on take-off, and a curved lower portion. The large engine gondolas provided
strong bulkheads on which were mounted
the two vertical fins and the tailplanes. The
AL-21 had its accessories mounted on top,
and the massive structure and fins immediately above made access difficult. From
the third aircraft the engine was the Lyul'ka
AL-31F, which had been specially designed
for this aircraft. It had an afterburning rating
of 12,500kg (27,557 Ib), and offered several
other advantages, one being that it was half a
tonne (1,100 Ib) lighter than the AL-21F. It had
its accessories partly underneath and partly
far forward on top, and the vertical tails were
moved outboard away from the engine compartments. The main landing gears had large
(1,030 x 350mm) tyres on single legs and retracted forwards, rotating the wheel through
90 to lie flat in the root of the wing in a bay
closed by side doors and large front doors
which served as airbrakes. The tall nose gear
had a single unbraked wheel with a 680 x
260mm tyre. It retracted backwards, and was
fitted with an all-round mudguard to protect
the engine inlets. The main-wheel wells required a thick inboard section of the wing adjacent to the engine gondolas, and this was
carried to the rear to provide strong beams to
which the tailplanes (and in the redesigned
aircraft the fins) were pivoted. The T-10 flight
controls comprised conventional ailerons,
two rudders and the independently controlled tailplanes. All these surfaces were driven by power units each served by both the
completely separated 210kg/cm2 (2,987 lb/in2)
hydraulic systems. These systems also drove
the plain flaps, landing gears (with independent airbrake actuation), nosewheel steering,
T-10
engine inlets and mainwheel brakes. The flyby-wire system governed pitch control by the
tailplanes used in unison, and provided threeaxis stabilization. The mechanical controls
worked directly by the pilot's linkages to the
surface power units governed the ailerons
and rudder. The five internal fuel tanks were
automatically controlled to supply fuel without disturbing the aircraft centre of gravity.
A special oxygen system was provided to ensure engine restart and afterburner light-up at
high altitude. T10-1 was built with no provision for armament, but in its modified state it
had seven hardpoints on which external
stores could be suspended.
Despite the fact that the basic aircraft had
to be completely redesigned, the T-10 family
of prototypes were stepping stones to the
greatest fighter of the modern era.
Dimensions (T10-1 as built)

Span
14.7m
Length
19.65m
Wing area
59.0 nf
48 ft 2V, in
64 ft 5K in
635 ft2
Weights
Weight empty
Loaded
18,200kg
25,740kg
40,1 23 Ib
56,746 Ib
Performance
at high altitude;
Service ceiling
Range
l,400km/h
2,230 km/h
17,500m
3,100km
870 mph (Mach 1.145)

1,386 mph (Mach 2.1)
57,415ft
1,926 miles
T10-1 after modernization.
179
S U K H O I P-42 / T 1 0 - 2 4
Sukhoi P-42
Purpose: To modify a T-10 (Su-27) to set
world records.
Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow,
General Constructor M P Simonov.
According to Simonov, The idea of entering a
competition for world records for aircraft of
this category was conceived during 1986. We
realised that this aircraft was capable of doing
many things. We were so confident that, for
record setting, we decided not to build a dedicated aircraft but took one of the pre-series
ones which had already flown. This then had
to be prepared in conformity with the stringent Federation Aeronautique Internationale
rules. The aircraft was called the P-42 as a
tribute to the turning point in the Stalingrad
battle in November 1942, when Soviet aviation had played a large part in crushing the
enemy'. The OKB organised a team of design
engineers, test pilots and supporting ground
staff under Chief Designer Rollan G Martirosov (who later designed Ekranoplans).
The modified aircraft was ready in October
1986. In two flights, on 27th October and 15th
November 1986 Viktor Pugachev set eight
climb-to-altitude records (four absolute and
four for aircraft of up to 16 tonnes take-off
weight): he reached 3km (9,843ft) in 15.573
seconds and 6km (19,685ft) in 37.05 seconds.

On 10th March 1987 and 23rd March 1988
Nikolai Sadovnikov flew the P-42 to 9km
(29,528ft) in 44.0 seconds, to 12km (39,370ft)
in 55.20 seconds and to 15km (49,213ft) in
70.329 seconds. On 10th June 1987 Sadovnikov set a world class record by sustaining an
altitude of 19,335m (63,435ft) in level flight.
Another record set by Pugachev was lifting a
load of 1 tonne (2,205 Ib) to 15km (49,213ft) in
81.71 seconds.
The aircraft selected was T10-15. It was
simplified and its weight reduced until it was
able to take off at a weight of 14,100kg
(31,08515). With AL-31F engines uprated to
13,600kg (29,982 Ib) this gave a thrust/weight
ratio of 1.93, believed to be the highest of any
aircraft ever built. Modification to the equipment included removal of the radar and military equipment (including the GSh-301 gun
and its ammunition container, wingtip missile launchers and weapon hardpoints) and
removal of avionics other than the flight, navigation and communications needed for safe
flight. Modifications to the airframe included
replacement of the nose radome by a metal
fairing, simplification of the wings by installing a fixed leading edge and a fixed structure in place of the flaperons, removal of the
ventral fins and the tops of the fins, replacement of the airbrake by a fairing and simplification of the airbrake supporting structure,
removal of the parabrake container, simplification of the variable engine inlets which
were locked in their optimum positions, and
removal of the mudguard from the nosewheel. The aircraft was left unpainted.
The P-42 set a total of 27 world records.
(TsAGI). This research revealed that in some

flight conditions there were longitudinal-control problems. A canard system free from
these problems was devised in 1982, and in
May 1985 flight testing of the T10-24 began.
The Tl 0-24 was fitted with the PGO (Peredneye Gorizontal'noye Opereniye, front horizontal tail). After prolonged research this was
fitted not on the forward fuselage, as in most
other canard aircraft, but to the leading edges
of the modified centroplan (centre wing).
The two surfaces had a cropped-delta plan
shape, with a thickness/chord ratio of 3 per
cent, and they were mounted horizontally

and pivoted at about 60 per cent root chord.
They were driven by power units linked to the
FBW flight-control system. Depending upon
the flight regime they increased stability in
pitch and roll and also instability in pitch.
They significantly reduced trim drag, and they
increased the maximum attainable lift coefficient (at an AOA of 30) from 1.75 to 2.1.
Testing the T10-24 substantiated the predicted advantages and supported development of later fighters, beginning with the
naval Su-27K.
Sukhoi T10-24
Purpose: To evaluate Su-27 foreplanes.
Design Bureau: P O Sukhoi, Moscow,
General Designer M P Simonov.
In 1977 Simonov authorised studies into the
possibility of adding foreplanes (canard surfaces) to the Su-27. Such surfaces appeared
to offer improved controllability, especially in
extreme manoeuvres at high AOA (angle of
attack), when flight testing had shown that
the tailerons were in the wake of the wing.
Following tunnel testing of models work continued in 1979 in collaboration with CAHI
180
S L I K H O I Su--37
Sukhoi Su-37
Purpose: To create the optimised multirole
fighter derived from the Su-27.
Design Bureau: AOOT 'OKB Sukhoi',
Moscow.
The superb basic design of the T-10 led not
only to the production Su-27 but also to several derivative aircraft. Some, such as the
Su-34, are almost completely redesigned for
new missions. One of the main objectives has
been to create even better multirole fighters,
and via the Su-27UB-PS and LMK 24-05
Sukhoi and the Engine KB 'Lyul'ka-Saturn'
have, in partnership with national laboratories and the avionics industry, created the
Su-37. The prototype was the T10M-11, tail
number 711, first flown on 2nd April 1996. The
engine nozzles were fixed on the first flight,
but by September 1996, when it arrived at the
Farnborough airshow, this aircraft had made
50 flights with nozzles able to vector. At the
British airshow it astounded observers by
going beyond the dramatic Kobra manoeuvre
and making a complete tight 360 somersault
essentially within the aircraft's own length
and without change in altitude. Called Kulbit
(somersault), this manoeuvre has yet to
be emulated by any other aircraft. In 1999
low-rate production was being planned at
Komsomolsk.
Essentially the Su-37 is an Su-35 with vectoring engines. Compared with the Su-27 the
Su-35 has many airframe modifications including canards, taller square-top fins (which
are integral tanks) and larger rudders, double-slotted flaps, a bulged nose housing the
electronically scanned antenna of the N011M
radar, an extended rear fuselage housing the
aft-facing defence radar, twin nosewheels
and, not least, quad FBW flight controls able
to handle a longitudinally unstable aircraft.
In addition to these upgrades the Su-37 has
AL-31FP engines, each with dry and augmented thrust of 8,500 and 14,500kg (18,740
and 31,9671b) respectively. These engines
have efficient circular nozzles driven by four
pairs of actuators to vector 15 in pitch.
Left/right vectoring is precluded by the proximity of the enlarged rear fuselage, but engine
General Designer Viktor Chepkin says 'Differential vectoring in the vertical plane is synonymous with 3-D multi-axis nozzles'. In
production engines the actuators are driven
by fuel pressure.
It is difficult to imagine how any fighter with
fixed-axis nozzles could hope to survive in
any kind of one-on-one engagement with this
aircraft.
Dimensions
Span (over ECM containers) 15.16m
Length
22.20m
Wing area
62.0m2
49 ft 8k! in
72 ft 10 in
667ft2
Weights
Weight empty
Maximum loaded
1 7 tonnes
34 tonnes
37,479 Ib
74,956 Ib
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level
at high altitude
Rate of climb
Service ceiling
l,400km/h
2,500 km/h
230 m/s
18,800m
3,300 km
870mph(Machl.l4)
1,553 mph (Mach 2.35)
45,276 ft/min
61,680ft
2,050 miles
Below: T1Q1A-11.
181
S U K H O I S-37 B E R K U T
Sukhoi S-37 Berkut

Purpose: To provide data to support the
design of a superior air-combat fighter.
Design Bureau: AOOT 'OKB Sukhoi',
Moscow.
Almost unknown until its first flight, this aircraft is one of the most remarkable in the sky.
Any impartial observer cannot fail to see that,
unless Sukhoi's brilliance has suddenly become dimmed, it is a creation of enormous
importance. Like the rival from MiG, it provides the basis for a true 'fifth-generation'
fighter which with rapid funding could swiftly
become one of the greatest multirole fighters
in the world. Unfortunately, in the Russia of
today it will do well to survive at all, especially as the WS has for political and personality
reasons shown hostile indifference. In fact on
1st February 1996, when the first image of a
totally new Sukhoi fighter leaked out in the
form of a fuzzy picture of a tabletop model,
the WS Military Council instantly proclaimed
that this aircraft 'is not prospective from the
point of view of re-equipment within 201025'. In fact the first hint of this project came
during a 1991 visit by French journalists to
CAHI (TsAGI), when they were shown a
S-37 Berkut
182
model of an aircraft with FSW (forwardswept wings) and canard foreplanes called
the Sukhoi S-32. At the risk of causing confusion, Sukhoi uses S for projects and Su for
products, the same number often appearing
in both categories but for totally different aircraft (for example, the Su-32 is piston-engined). In December 1993, during the
Institute's 75th-birthday celebrations, its work
on the FSW was said to be 'for a new fighter
of Sukhoi design'. The model shown in February 1996 again bore the number '32' but
clearly had tailplanes as well as canards. It
had been known for many years that the FSW
has important aeroelastic advantages over
the traditional backswept wing (see OKB-1
bombers and Tsybin LL). At least up to Mach
1.3 (1,400 tol,500km/h, 870 to 930mph) the
FSW offers lower drag and superior manoeuvrability, and the lower drag also translates as
longer range. A further advantage is that takeoffs and landings are shorter. The fundamental aeroelastic problem with the FSW can be
demonstrated by holding a cardboard wing
out of the window of a speeding vehicle. A
cardboard FSW tends to bend upwards violently, out of control. An FSW for a fast jet was
thus very difficult to make until the technology of composite structures enabled the wing
to be designed with skins formed from multiple layers of adhesive-bonded fibres of carbon or glass. With such skins the directions of
the fibres can be arranged to give maximum
strength, rather like the directions of the grain
in plywood. The first successful jet FSW was
the Grumman X-29, first flown in December
1984. This exerted a strong influence on the
Sukhoi S-32 design team, which under
Mikhail Simonov was led by First Deputy General Designer Mikhail A Pogosyan, and included Sergei Korotkov who is today's S-37
chief designer. From 1983 the FSW was exhaustively investigated, not only by aircraft
OKBs but especially by CAHI (TsAGI) and the
Novosibirsk-based SibNIA, which tunnel-tested several FSW models based loosely on the
Su-27. By 1990 Simonov was determined to
create an FSW prototype, and three years
later the decision had been taken not to wait
for non-existent State funds but instead to put
every available Sukhoi ruble into constructing
such an aircraft. Despite a continuing absence of official funding, this has proved to be
possible because of income from export
Above and below: Two views of S-37 Berkut.
sales of fighters of the Su-27 family. Construction began in early 1996, but in that year
Western aviation magazines began chanting
that the S-32 was soon to fly. Uncertain about
the outcome, Simonov changed the designation to S-37, so that he could proclaim The
S-32 does not exist'. It had been hoped to fly
the radical new research aircraft at the MAKS97 airshow, but it was not ready in time. It was
a near miss, because the almost completed
S-37 had begun ground testing in July, and by
August it was making taxi tests at LII
Zhukovskii, the venue for the airshow. After
MAKS 97 was over it emerged again, and on
25th September 1997 it began its flight test
programme. The assigned pilot is Igor Viktorovich Votintsev. A cameraman at the LII
took film which was broadcast on Russian
TV, when the aircraft was publicised as the
Berkut (golden eagle). On its first flight, when
for a while the landing gear was retracted, the
S-37 was accompanied by a chase Su-30 carrying a photographer. It is a long way from
being an operational fighter, but that is no rea-
son for dismissing it as the WS, Ministry of

Defence and the rival MiG company have
done. Fortunately there are a few objective
people in positions of authority, one being
Marshal Yevgenii Shaposhnikov, former WS
C-in-C. Despite rival factions both within the
WS and industry (and even within OKB
Sukhoi) this very important aircraft has made
it to to the flight-test stage. Whether it can be
made to lead to a fully operational fighter is
problematical.
The primary design objective of this aircraft
is to investigate the aerodynamics and control systems needed to manoeuvre at angles
of attack up to at least 100. From the outset it
was designed to be powered by two AL-41F
augmented turbofans from Viktor Chepkin's
Lyul'ka Saturn design bureau. In 1993 he confidentially briefed co-author Gunston on this
outstanding engine. At that time it had already
begun flight testing under a Tu-16 and on one
side of a M1G-25PD (aircraft 84-20). Despite
this considerable maturity it was not cleared
as the sole source of propulsion in time for the
S-37, though the aircraft could be re-engined
later. Accordingly the Sukhoi prototype is at
present powered by two AL-31F engines, with

dry and afterburning thrusts of 8,100 and
12,500kg (17,557 and 27,560 Ib), respectively.
Special engines were tailored to suit the S-37
installation, but at the start of the flight programme they still lacked vectoring nozzles.
The engines are mounted only a short distance apart, fed by ducts from lateral inlets of
the quarter-circle type. At present the inlets
are of fixed geometry, with inner splitter
plates standing away from the wall of the
fuselage and bounded above by the underside of the very large LERX (leading-edge root
extension), which in fact is quite distinct from
the root of the wing. The wing itself comprises an inboard centroplan with leading-edge
sweep of 70, leading via a curved corner to
the main panel with forward sweep of 24 on
the leading edge and nearly 40 on the trailing
edge. The forward-swept portion has a twosection droop flap over almost the whole
leading edge, and plain trailing-edge flaps
and outboard ailerons. Structurally it is described as '90 per cent composites'. The main
wing panels are designed so that in a derived
aircraft they could fold to enable the aircraft
183
Three views of S-37 Berkut.
to fit into the standard Russian hardened aircraft shelter. Aerodynamically the S-37 is another 'triplane', having canard foreplanes as
well as powered tailplanes. The former are
greater in chord than those of later Su-27 derivatives, the trailing edge being tapered instead of swept back. Likewise the tailplanes
have enormous chord, but as the leadingedge angle is over 75 their span is very short.
As in other Sukhoi fighters, the tailplanes are
pivoted to beams extending back from the
wing on the outer side of the engines. Unlike
previous Sukhois the tailplanes are not
mounted on spigots on the sides of the beams
but on transverse hinges across their aft end.
These beams also carry the fins and rudders,
which are similar to those of other Sukhois
apart from being further apart (a long way
outboard of the engines) and canted outward. After flight testing had started the rudders were given extra strips (in Russia called
knives) along the trailing edge. When the S-37
is parked, with hydraulic pressure decayed,
the foreplanes, tailplanes and ailerons come
to rest 30 nose-up. The landing gear is almost
identical to that of the Su-27K, with twin steerable nosewheels. In the photographs released so far no airbrakes or centreline
braking-parachute container can be seen. In184
ternal fuel capacity is a mere 4,000kg

(8,8181b), though much more could be accommodated. The cockpit has an Su-27 type
upward-hinged canopy, and a sidestick on
the right. The airframe makes structural provision for 8 tonnes (17,637 Ib) of external and
internal weapons, including a gun in the left
centroplan. It is also covered in numerous
flush avionics antennas, though the only ones
that are functional are those necessary for
aerodynamic and control research. A bump
to starboard ahead of the wraparound windscreen could later contain an opto-electronic
(TV, IR, laser) sight, while the two tail beams
are continued different distances to the rear
to terminate in prominent white domes,
doubtless for avionics though they could conceivably house braking parachutes. These
domes stand out against the startling dark
blue with which this aircraft has been painted. Sukhoi has stressed that this aircraft incorporates radar-absorbent and beneficially
reflective 'stealth' features, though again the
objective is research. Also standing out visually are the white-bordered red stars, though
of course the aircraft is company-owned and
bears 'OKB Sukhoi' in large yellow characters
on the fuselage, along with callsign 01, which
confusingly is the same as the MiG 1.44.
The Russians have traditionally had a

strong aversion to what appear to be unconventional solutions, and this has in the past
led to the rejection of many potentially outstanding aircraft. The S-37 has to overcome
this attitude, as well as the bitter political
struggle within the OKB, with RSK MiG, with
factions in the Ministry of Defence and air
force and, not least, two banks which are battling to control the OKB.
Dimensions
Span
Length (ex PVO boom)
Wing area about
16.7m
22.6m
67m 2
Weights
Take-off mass given as
24 tonnes
(the design maximum is higher)
54 ft m in
74 ft 1% in
721 ft2
52,910 Ib
Performance
Design maximum speed
1,700 km/h,
1,057 mph (Mach 1.6)
(which would explain the fixed-geometry inlets. At Mach numbers
much higher than this the FSW is less attractive)
At press time no other data had emerged.
T S Y B I N Ts-1, LL
TsybinTs-1, LL
LL-1, showing take-off trolley
Purpose: To study wings for transonic flight.

Design Bureau: OKB-256, Chief Designer
Pavel Vladimirovich Tsybin, professor at
Zhukovskii academy.
In September 1945 the LIl-MAP (Flight Research Institute) asked Tsybin to investigate
wings suitable for flight at high Mach numbers (if possible, up to 1). In 1946 numerous
models were tested at CAHI (TsAGI), as a result of which OKB-256 constructed the Ts-1,
also called LL-1 (flying laboratory 1). Almost
in parallel, a design team at the OKB led by
A V Beresnev developed a new fuselage and
tail and two new wings, one swept back and
the other swept forward. The LL-1 made 30
flights beginning in mid-1947 with NIl-WS
pilot M Ivanov, and continuing with AmetKhan Sultan, S N Anokhin and N S Rybko. On
each flight the aircraft was towed by a Tu-2.
Casting off at 5-7km (16,400-23,000ft), the aircraft was dived at 45-60 until at full speed it
was levelled out and the rocket fired. In winter 1947-48 the second Ts-1 was fitted with
the swept-forward wing to become the LL-3.
This made over 100 flights, during which a
speed of l,200km/h (746mph) and Mach 0.97
were reached, without aeroelastic problems
and yielding much information. The sweptback wing was retrofitted to the first aircraft to
create the LL-2, but this was never flown.
The original Ts-1 (LL-1) was essentially allwood. The original wing had two Delta (resinbonded ply) spars, a symmetric section of 5
per cent thickness, 0 dihedral and +2 incidence. It had conventional ailerons and plain
flaps (presumably worked by bottled gas
pressure). Take-offs were made from a twowheel jettisonable dolly, plus a small tailwheel. In the rear fuselage was a PRD-1500
solid-propellant rocket developed by 11 Kartukov, giving 1,500kg (3,307 Ib) (more at high
altitude) for eight to ten seconds. Flight controls were manual, with mass balances. On
early flights no less than one tonne (2,2051b)
of water was carried as ballast, simulating instrumentation to be installed later. This was
jettisoned before landing, when the aircraft
(now a glider) was much more manoeuvrable. Landings were made on a skid. Various kinds of instrumentation were carried,
and at times at least one wing was tufted and
photographed. The LL-3 was fitted with a
metal wing with a forward sweep of 30 (according to drawings this was measured on
the leading edge), with no less than 12 dihedral. The new tailplane had a leading-edge
sweepback of 40. To adjust the changed centres of lift and of gravity new water tanks were
fitted in the nose and tail. Both LL-1 and LL-3
were considered excellent value for money.
LL-3
LL-2, with LL-3 shown dotted
185
T S Y B I N Ts-1, LL
Dimensions (LL-1)
Span
Length
Wing area
7.1m
8.98m
10.0m2
23 ft 3^ in
29 ft 514 in
108ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
Landing
1 tonne
2,039 kg
1,100kg
2,205 Ib
4,495 Ib
2,425 Ib
Performance
Max speed reached
Landing speed
l,050km/h
120km/h
652 mph
74.6 mph
Left: LL-1.
Below left: LL-2.
Below: LL-2, left wing tufted.
186
Dimensions (LL-3)
Span
Length
Wing area
7.22m
8.98m
10.0m2
23 ft 814 in
29 ft 5^ in
108ft 2
Weights
Loaded
Landing
2,039kg
1,100kg
4,495 Ib
2,425 Ib
Performance
Max speed reached
Landing speed
l,200km/h
120km/h
746 mph
74.6 mph
T S Y B I N RS
Tsybin RS
Purpose: To create a winged strategic
delivery vehicle.
Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez'ye,
Director P V Tsybin.
In the early 1950s it was evident that the forthcoming thermonuclear weapons would need
strategic delivery systems of a new kind. Until
the ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile)
was perfected the only answer appeared to
be a supersonic bomber. After much planning, Tsybin went to the Kremlin on 4th March
1954 and outlined his proposal for a Reaktivnyi Samolyot (jet aeroplane). The detailed
and costed Preliminary Project was issued on
31st January 1956, with a supplementary submission of a reconnaissance version called
2RS. Korolyov's rapid progress with the R-7
ICBM (launched 15th May 1957 and flown to
its design range on 21st August 1957) caused
the RS to be abandoned. All effort was transferred to the 2RS reconnaissance aircraft (described next).
The RS had an aerodynamically brilliant
configuration, precisely repeated in the
British Avro 730 which was timed over a year
later. The wing was placed well back on the
long circular-section fuselage and had a symmetric section with a thickness/chord ratio of
2.5 to 3.5 per cent. It had extremely low aspect ratio (0.94) and was sharply tapered on
both edges. Large-chord flaps were provided
inboard of conventional ailerons, other flight
controls comprising canard foreplanes and a

rudder, all surfaces being fully powered. The
cockpit housed a pilot in a pressure suit, seated in an ejection-seat under a canopy linked
to the tail by a spine housing pipes and controls. The RS was to be carried to a height of
9km (29,528ft) under a Tu-95N. After release
it was to accelerate to supersonic speed (design figure 3,000km/h) on the thrust of two jettisoned rocket motors. The pilot was then to
start the two propulsion engines, mounted on
the wingtips. These were RD-013 ramjets, designed by Bondaryuk's team at OKB-670.
Each had a fixed-geometry multi-shock inlet
and convergent/divergent nozzle matched to
the cruise Mach number of 2.8. Internal diameter and length were respectively 650mm
(2ft IHin) and 5.5m (18ft 1/2in). The 1955 project had 16.5 tonnes of fuel, or nearly 3.5 times
the 4.8-t empty weight, but by 1956 the latter
had grown and fuel weight had in consequence been reduced. The military load was
to be a 244N thermonuclear bomb weighing
1,100kg (2,4251b). The only surviving drawing
shows this carried by a tailless-delta missile
towed to the target area attached behind the
RS fuselage (see below). Data for this vehicle
are not known.
Outstandingly advanced for its day, had this
vehicle been carried through resolutely it
would have presented 'The West' with a serious defence problem.
Dimensions
Span (over engine centrelines) 9.0 m
Basic wing
7.77 m
Foreplane
3.2 m
Length
27.5 m
Wing area
64 m2
29 ft 6% in
25ft5 3 /4in
10 ft 6 in
90 ft 2% in
689ft 2
Weights
Empty
5,200 kg
Fuel
10,470kg
Maximum take-off weight 2 1 , 1 60 kg
ll,4641b
23,082 Ib
46,649 Ib
Performance
Range at 3,000 km/h (1,864 mph, Mach 2.82)
at 28 km (91 ,864 ft) altitude 13,500 km
8,389 miles
Landing speed/
245 km/h
152 mph
run
1,100m
3,610ft
RS
187
T S Y B I N 2RS
Tsybin 2RS
Purpose: To create a strategic
reconnaissance aircraft.
As noted previously, the 2RS was launched as
a project in January 1956. It was to be a minimum-change derivative of the RS, carried to
high altitude under the Tu-95N and subsequently powered by two RD-013 ramjets.
However, it was decided that such an aircraft
would be operationally cumbersome and inflexible, and that, despite a very substantial
reduction in operational radius, it would be
preferable to switch to conventional afterburning turbojets and take off from the
ground. The revised project was called RSR
(described later). The Ministry gave this the
go-ahead on 31st August 1956, but work on
2RS
188
the 2RS continued until is was terminated in

early 1957. As it was no longer needed,
Tupolev then stopped the rebuild of the Tu95N carrier at Factory No 18 at Kuibyshev.
The 2RS would have differed from the RS
principally in having the canard foreplanes replaced by slab tailplanes. Behind these was
installed a braking parachute. Provision was
made for large reconnaissance cameras in
the fuselage ahead of the wing. Surviving
drawings (below) also show provision for a
244N thermonuclear weapon, this time as a
free-fall bomb recessed under the fuselage
further aft. Carrying this would have moved
the main landing gear unacceptably close to
the tail.
Though there was much to be said for air
launch, the basic concept looked increasingly unattractive.
Dimensions
Span (over engine centrelines) 9.0 m
Length
27.4 m
Wing area
64.0 m2
29 ft 6% in
89 ft 1 13/ in
689ft 2
Weight
Empty
Fuel
Loaded (cameras only)
9,030 kg
11,800kg
20,950 kg
19,907 Ib
26,014 Ib
46,1 86 Ib
Performance
Max (also cruising) speed
at 20 km (65,61 7 ft)
Service ceiling
Range (high altitude)
Landing speed/
run
2,700 km/h
27 km
7,000 km
230 km/h
800 m
1,678 mph (Mach 2.54)

88,583 ft
4,350 miles
143 mph
2,625 ft
T S Y B I N RSR
Tsybin RSR
Purpose: To create an improved
reconnaissance aircraft.
The preliminary project for the revised aircraft,
able to take off in the conventional manner,
was dated 26th June 1957. Design proceeded
rapidly, and in parallel OKB-256 created a simplified version, using well-tried engines, which
could be got into the air quickly to provide data
(see NM-1, next). These data became available from April 1959, and resulted in significant
changes to the RSR (see R-020). The basic design, however, can be described here.
Though the RSR was derived directly from
the 2RS, it differed in having augmented bypass turbojet engines (low-ratio turbofans)
and strengthened landing gear for conventional full-load take-offs. A basic design choice
was to make the structure as light as possible
by selecting a design load factor of only 2.5 and
avoiding thermal distortion despite local skin
temperatures of up to 220C. By this means the
use of steel and titanium was almost eliminatDimensions
Span (over engines)
1 0.23 m
(ignoring engines)
7.77 m
Length (ignoring nose probe) 27.4 m
Wing area
64.0 m2
33ft6 3 /iin
25ft5 3 /4in
89 ft 10% in
689ft 2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
8,800 kg
12 tonnes
21 tonnes
1 9,400 Ib
26,455 Ib
46,296 Ib
Performance
Cruising speed
at service ceiling of
Range
Take-off
Landing speed/run
(usingbraking parachute)
2,800 km/h
26,700 m
3,760 km
1,300m
245 km/h
1 ,200 m
1,740 mph (Mach 2.64)

87,600ft
2,336 miles
4,265 ft
152 mph
3,937ft
ed, though some skins (ailerons, outer wing

and tail torsion boxes) were to be in aluminium/beryllium alloy. As before, the wing had a
t/c ratio of 2.5 per cent, 58 leading-edge
sweep and three main and two secondary
spars. The tips, 86mm deep, carried Solov'yov
D-21 bypass engines. These bore no direct relationship to today's D-21A1 by the same design team. They were two-shaft engines with a
bypass ratio of 0.6, and in cruising flight they
were almost ramjets. Sea-level dry and augmented ratings were 2,200kg (4,850 Ib) and
4,750kg (10,472 Ib) respectively. Dry engine
mass was 900kg (l,9841b) and nacelle diameter was 1.23m (4ft 1/2in). The fuselage had a
fineness ratio of no less than 18.6, diameter
being only 1.5m (4ft 1 lin). All tail surfaces had
a t/c ratio of 3.5 per cent, and comprised a onepiece vertical fin with actuation limits of
18 and one-piece tailplanes with limits of
+ 10/-25. All flight controls were fully powered, with rigid rod linkages from the cockpit
and an artificial-feel system. The main and
steerable nose landing gears now had twin
wheels, and were supplemented by single-
wheel gears under the engines, all four units

hydraulically retracting to the rear. A braking
parachute was housed in the tailcone. A total
of 7,600kg (16,755 Ib) of kerosene fuel was
housed in integral tanks behind the cockpit
and behind the wing, plus 4,400kg (9,700 Ib) in
two slender (650mm, 2ft 1 V-im diameter) drop
tanks. An automatic trim control system
pumped fuel to maintain the centre of gravity
at 25 per cent on take-off, 45.0 in cruising flight
and 26.4 on landing. In cruising flight the cockpit was kept at 460mm Hg, and the pilot's pressure suit maintained 156mm after ejection. An
APU and propane burner heated the instrument and camera pallets which filled the centre fuselage, a typical load comprising two
AFA-200 cameras (200mm focal length) plus
an AFA-1000 or AFA-1800 (drawings show four
cameras), while other equipment included
optical sights, panoramic radar, an autopilot,
astro-inertial navigation plus a vertical gyro, a
radar-warning receiver and both active and
passive ECM (electronic countermeasures)
During construction this aircraft was modified into the RSR R-020.
RSR
RSR inboard profile
189
TSYBIN NM-1
TsybinNM-1
Purpose: To provide full-scale flight data to
support the RSR.
In autumn 1956 funding was provided for a
research aircraft designated NM-1 (Naturnaya
Model', life [like] model). This was to be a single flight article with an airframe based upon
that of the RSR but simplified, with proven engines and stressed for lighter weights. It was
completed in September 1958. On 1st October Amet-Khan Sultan began taxi testing, and
he made the first flight on 7th April 1959, with
a Yak-25 flying chase. The flight plan called for
take-off at 220km/h, but after a tentative

hop Sultan actually took off at 325km/h, and
jettisoned the dolly at 40m (131ft) at 400km/h
(248mph). The dolly broke on hitting the
runway (on later flights it had an automatic
parachute). Sultan easily corrected a slight
rolling motion, and flew a circuit at 1,500m at
500km/h before making a landing at 275km/h
(90km/h faster than planned). Altogether
Sultan and Radii Zakharov made 32 flights,
establishing generally excellent flying qualities (take-off, approach and landing 'easier
than MiG or Su aircraft') but confirming neutral or negative stability in roll.
The five-spar 2.5-per-cent wing had constant-chord ailerons and flaps which were
unlike those of the RSR. On the tips were two
Mikulin (Tumanskii) AM-5 turbojets each
rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib) thrust, in simple nacelles without inlet centrebodies. The pilot
sat in an ejection-seat under a very small
canopy; the low-drag RS-4/01 canopy, resembling that of the RSR, was never fitted. Along
the centreline were a sprung skid, hydraulically retracted into a long box, and a small
tailwheel, while hydraulically extended skids
were hinged under the nacelles. For take-offs
a jettisonable two-wheel dolly was attached
under the main skid. A door under the pointed tailcone released the braking parachute.
After the taxi tests, following recommendations from CAHI (TsAGI) small extra wing surfaces were added outboard of the engines.
The fuselage contained two kerosene tanks,
a hydraulic-fluid tank and a nose water tank
to adjust centre of grravity to 25.5 per cent of
mean aerodynamic chord.
The NM-1 showed that the basic RSR concept was satisfactory.
Above: Three views of NM-1.
NM-1
Dimensions
Span (between engine centrelines) 8.6 m
10.48m
(overall)
Length
26.57 m
Wing area
64m 2
28 ft n in
34 ft 454 in
87 ft y/, in
689ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
1 7,306 Ib
2,646 Ib
20,282 Ib
7,850 kg
1,200kg
9,200 kg
Performance
500 km/h
Max speed (achieved)
High performance not explored
Take-off run
1,325m
Landing run from
275 km/h
1,180m
190
311 mph
4,347ft
171 mph
3,871 ft
T S Y B I N RSR, R-020
Tsybin RSR, R-020

Purpose: To improve the RSR further.
later repeatedly transferred (see below).
Upon receipt of data from the NM-1, the RSR
had to be largely redesigned. Construction was
only marginally held up, and in early 1959
drawings for the first five pre-series R-020 aircraft were issued to Factory No 99 at Ulan-Ude.
However, Tsybin's impressive aircraft had their
commercial rivals and political enemies, some
of whom just thought them too 'far out', and in
any case vast sums were being transferred to
missiles and space. On 1st October 1959
President Khrushchyev closed OKB-256, and
the Ministry transferred the RSR programme
to OKB-23 (General Constructor VM Myasishchev) at the vast Khrunichev works. The
Poberez'ye facilities were taken over by
A Ya Bereznyak (see BI story). The Khrunichev
management carried out a feasibility study for
construction of the R-020, but in October 1960
Myasishchev was appointed Director of CAHI
(TsAGI). OKB-23 was closed, and the entire
Khrunichev facility was assigned to giant space
launchers. The RSR programme was thereupon again moved, this time to OKB-52. At
first this organization's General Constructor
V N Chelomey supported Tsybin's work, but increasingly it interfered with OKB-52's main
programmes. In April 1961, despite the difficulties, the five R-020 pre-series aircraft were essentially complete, waiting only for engines. In
that month came an order to terminate the programme and scrap the five aircraft. The workforce bravely refused, pointing out how much
had been accomplished and how near the aircraft were to being flown. The management
quietly put them into storage (according to
R-020
V Pazhitnyi, the Tsybin team were told this was

'for eventual further use'). Four years later,
when the team had dispersed, the aircraft
were removed to a scrapyard, though some
parts were taken to the exhibition hall at the
Moscow Aviation Institute.
The airframe of the 1960 RSR differed in several ways from the 1957 version. To avoid surface-to-air missiles it was restressed to enable
the aircraft to make a barrel roll to 42km
(137,800ft). The wings were redesigned with
eight instead of five major forged and machined ribs between the root and the engine.
The leading edge was fitted with flaps, with
maximum droop of 10. The trailing edge was
tapered more sharply, and area was maintained by adding a short section (virtually a
strake) outboard of the engine. These extensions had a sharp-edged trapezoidal profile.
According to Tsybin These extensions, added
on the recommendation of CAHI, did not produce the desired effect and were omitted', but
they are shown in drawings. In fact, CAHI really wanted a total rethink of the wing, as related
in the final Tsybin entry. The tailplane was redesigned with only 65 per cent as much area,
with sharp taper and a span of only 3.8m (12ft
5%in). Its power unit was relocated ahead of
the pivot, requiring No 6 (trim) tank to be
moved forward and shortened. The fin was
likewise greatly reduced in height and given
sharper taper, and pivoted two frames further
aft. The ventral strake underfin was replaced
by an external ventral trimming fuel pipe. The
main landing gear was redesigned as a fourwheel bogie with 750 x 250mm tyres, and the
outrigger gears were replaced by hydraulically
extended skids in case a nacelle should touch
the ground. The pilot was given a better view,
with a deeper canopy and a sharp V (instead of

flat) windscreen. The camera bay was redesigned with a flat bottom with sliding doors.
The nose was given an angle-of-attack sensor,
and a pitot probe was added ahead of the fin.
The drop tanks were increased in diameter to
700mm (2ft 31/2in) but reduced in length to 5.8m
(19ft) instead of 11.4m (37ft 4Min). Not least, the
D-21 engines never became available, and had
to be replaced by plain afterburning turbojets.
The choice fell on the mass-produced Tumanskii R-l IF, each rated at 3,940kg (8,686Ib) dry
and 5,750kg (12,676 Ib) with afterburner. These
were installed in longer and slimmer nacelles,
with inlet sliding centrebodies pointing straight
ahead instead of angled downwards.
There is no reason to doubt that the pre-series RSR, designated R-020, would have performed as advertised. It suffered from a
Kremlin captivated by ICBMs and space, which
took so much money that important aircraft
programmes were abandoned. The United
Kingdom similarly abandoned the Avro 730, a
reconnaissance bomber using identical technology, but in this case it was for the insane reason that missiles would somehow actually
replace aircraft. Only the USA had the vision
and resources to create an aircraft in this class,
and by setting their sights even higher the
Lockheed SR-71 proved valuable for 45 years.
Dimensions
Span (with small tip extensions) 10.66 m
Length (excl nose probe) 28.0 m
Wing area
64 m2
34 ft 1 13/ in
91 ft 10% in
689 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel
Loaded
20,062 Ib
23,589 Ib
43,805 Ib
9,100kg
10,700kg
19,870kg
Performance
Cruising speed at reduced
altitude of 12 km (39,370 ft) 2,600 km/h
Service ceiling
22,500 m
Range
4,000 km
Take-off run
1,200m
Landing speed/run
2 1 0 km/h
(with braking parachute) 800 m
1,616 mph (Mach 2.44)

73,819ft
2,486 miles take-off
3,937ft
130.5 mph
2,625 ft
R-020 centre fuselage at MAI.
191
T S Y B I N RSR, R-020 / RSR D E R I V A T I V E S
Tsybin RSR Derivatives

RSR as proposed by CAHI (TsAGI)
A-57
RGSR
192
For interest, drawings are reproduced here of

various projects which stemmed from the
RSR. The first shows the way CAHI (TsAGI)
wanted it. The purist aerodynamicists in that
establishment were convinced that this supersonic-cruise aircraft ought to have true supersonic wings, with sharp edges and a
trapezoidal (parallel double wedge) profile
instead of a traditional curved aerofoil. As this
would have meant a very long take-off run
they proposed to add substantial wings outboard of the engines, giving a span of 14.5m
(47ft 6%in), requiring total redesign and a dramatically inferior aircraft. The next drawing
shows the awesome A-57, proposed in 1957
by R L Bartini, who featured on previous
pages. There were several versions of this
and the considerably smaller Ye-57. The A-57
shown would have been powered by five
Kuznetsov NK-10 engines, each of 25,000kg
(55,115 Ib) thrust. This 320 tonne (705,467 Ib)
vehicle, with a length of 69.5m (228ft) and
wing area of 755m2 (8,127ft 2 ), was to have
been water-based for operational flexibility
and to avoid having to use vulnerable airfields
(though it also had skids for airfield landings
if necessary). It would have carried a 244N
thermonuclear bomb internally, as well as a
2RS (later RSR) carried pick-a-back to the target at 2,500km/h (l,553mph, Mach 2.35) to
serve as an accompanying reconnaissance
aircraft. Together they could cover targets
within a radius of 5,000km (3,107 miles), the
Tsybin 2RS reconnaissance vehicle using its
fuel only on the return flight. The final drawing shows the Tsybin RGSP, also dating from
1957. This too would have been water-based,
with a planing bottom, engines moved above
the wings to avoid the spray (minimised by
the down-angled water fins), and with the external tanks serving as wingtip buoyancy bodies. This version was not equipped for airfield
landings.
T U P O L E V ANT-23, I-12
TupolevANT23,I-12
Purpose: To build an improved fighter
armed with APK-4 guns.
Design Bureau: Brigade led by Viktor
Nikolayevich Chernyshov in AGOS
(Department of Aeroplane and Hydroplane
Construction), whose Chief Constructor was
A N Tupolev.
Towards the end of the 1930s there was great
activity in the still chaotic aircraft industry
of the embryonic Soviet Union. Part of this effort was concerned with making use of the
large-calibre recoilless guns devised by L V
Kurchevskii. These had various designations
but the most common was APK (Avtomatichyeskaya Pushka Kurchevskogo, automatic cannon Kurchevskii). Such guns were
invented by Cdr Cleland Davis, of the US Navy,
and developed in England from 1915. The
idea was that, if the recoil of the projectile
could be balanced by a blast of gas and possibly an inert mass fired to the rear, then aircraft could use lightly made weapons of large
calibres. Russian copies were produced by
Professor B S Stechkin in 1922-26, and in 1930
Leonid Vasil'yevich Kurchevskii restarted this
work and developed a range of weapons of
different calibres. Of these the most immedi-
ately important was the APK-4, with a calibre

of 76.2mm (Sin). Together with the Grigorovich Z (later I-Z) described earlier, the
ANT-23 was the first aircraft specially designed to use these guns. The AGOS designers had the idea that, instead of just hanging
the guns under the wings, they could be put
inside strong tubes which could then attach
the tail to the wing. This enabled the central
nacelle to have an engine at each end,
giving outstanding flight performance. Design
began in June 1930, and the first flight
was made by Ivan Frolovich Kozlov on 29th
August 1931. On 21st March 1932 he was
ANT-23 as modified (upper side view, original form)
193
T U P O L E V ANT-23, I-12
undertaking firing trials at about 1,000m
(3,280ft) when the diffuser section at the rear
of the left gun exploded. This severed the tail
controls in that boom, but he managed to
make a normal landing, the boom collapsing
during the landing run (he received the Order
of the Red Star). The fault was soon corrected, and from autumn 1931 a second prototype (called a doobler), the ANT-236/s, was
built. This received service designation I-12,
and was also named Baumanskii Komsomolets after the revolutionary who until his death
in 1905 had worked next to the AGOS site. It
incorporated various minor improvements,
one of which was to arrange for the pilot in
emergency to detonate a charge which severed the drive shaft to the rear propeller prior
to baling out. Work was halted during the investigation into the accident to the first aircraft, and by 1933 the I-12 was overtaken by
the Grigorovich IP family and the DIP, ANT-29.
Work on it was stopped on 1st January 1934.
Structurally the ANT-23 followed Tupolev
tradition in that it was a cantilever monoplane
made entirely of aluminium alloy, but it broke
new ground in that corrugated sheet was not
used except on the fin and rudder. Instead,
the central nacelle had smooth skin, and the
wings were skinned in sheets cut to a uniform
width of 150mm (Gin), wrapped round the

leading edge. The edge of each strip was
rolled to have a channel section, so that the
complete wing appeared to have a skin with
widely spaced corrugations. In usual Tupolev
fashion, the aileron chord extended behind
the trailing edge of the wing. The nacelle was
welded from KhMA steel tube, with much of
the light-alloy skin being in the form of detachable panels. At each end was an imported 480hp Gnome-Rhone GR9K (licence-built
Bristol Jupiter) in a cowling with helmets over
the cylinders. Above each wing was attached
a precision-made tube of high-strength steel
formed by screwing together three sections
each machined to an internal diameter of
170mm (6%in). Wall thickness varied from 1
to 3mm. Over the wing the tube was faired in
by thin aluminium sheet, and at the tail end
was a gas diffuser. Above this was a shallow
platform to which was attached the tailplane,
carrying the strut-braced fin in the centre. Tall
sprung tailskids were attached under each
tube, and originally the rubber-sprung main
landing gears had spats, though these were
later omitted. Inside each tail boom was installed the 76.2mm APK-4, with the front of
the barrel projecting. Soon the engines were
replaced by the 570hp version made under
licence in the Soviet Union as the M-22, and

the helmets were incorporated into ring cowls.
Another modification was to replace the vertical tail by a redesigned structure with the
same kind of skin as the rest of the aircraft.
When work began it was thought that this
aircraft might be a world-beater. It was soon
evident that the performance was well short
of expectations, partly because of the fact that
the rear propeller worked in the slipstream of
that in front. Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of this aircraft was the fact that the ammunition supply for each gun was limited to
two rounds.
Dimensions
Span
Length
Wing area
15.67m
9.52m
33.0 m2
51 ft 5 in
31 ft 2 in
355 ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,818kg
2,405 kg
4,008 Ib
5,302 Ib
Performance
Max speed at 5 km (16,400 ft) 318 km/h
7.7 min
Service ceiling
9,320 m
Range
405km
Landing speed
l00knVh
198 mph
(16,400ft)
30,580ft
252 miles
62 mph
Two views of ANT-23 after modification.
194
T U P O L E V A N T - 2 9 , DIP
Tupolev ANT-29, DIP

Purpose: A heavy fighter with large-calibre
recoilless guns.
Design Bureau: KOSOS-CAHI (department
of experimental aeroplane construction,
central aero-hydrodynamics institute), Chief
Constructor A N Tupolev.
ANT-29, DIP
This large fighter was a natural successor to

the ANT-21 MI-3 (MI = multi-seat fighter) ordered in January 1932 and flown in May 1933.
Whereas that aircraft had had conventional
armament, the ANT-29 or DIP (Dvukhmestnyi
Istrebitel' Pushechnyi, two-seat cannon
[armed] fighter) was designed around two of
the largest available calibre of APK recoilless
guns (see preceding story). Funds for a single
prototype were made available by the WS in
September 1932. Tupolev entrusted the design to his first deputy P O Sukhoi. Normally
the aircraft would have flown in about a year,
but priority was given to the ANT-40 fast
bomber (which flew in 1934 as the SB), and
the ANT-29 was not completed until February
1935. Flight testing was started by S A Korzinshchikov, who reported that the flight controls, especially the ailerons and rudder, were
unacceptably ineffective. This prototype was
returned to CAHI's ZOK (factory for prototype
construction) for rectification, the main task
being to re-skin the control surfaces. Testing
resumed in late 1935, but by this time the
ANT-46 (DI-8) was flying. The ANT-29 belonged to the previous generation, and it was
abandoned in March 1936.
Like its predecessor, the ANT-21, the ANT29 was an aerodynamically clean monoplane
powered by two liquid-cooled engines. The
wings were aerodynamically similar but totally different structurally, and the engines
likewise were quite new. They were two of
the first 760hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs 12-cylinder engines to be imported into the Soviet
Union. Later this engine was developed by
VYaKlimov into the VK-103 and VK-105, of
which over 129,000 were constructed. In this
aircraft they drove imported French Chauviere three-blade variable-pitch propellers of
3.5m (138in) diameter. Carburettor air entered through a small inlet under the wing
leading edge, and the radiator was in a shutter-controlled duct directly under the engine.
The wing had a modern structure with two
plate spars, made as a 3m (9ft 1 0in) horizontal centre section and 5.9m (19ft 4in) outer
panels with taper and dihedral. Like the rest
of the airframe the outer wing skins were
smooth. In this Sukhoi broke new ground,
previous 'ANT' aircraft having had corrugated
metal skins showing that they originated in
Junkers technology of the early 1920s. The
short fuselage was of tall oval section and
195
TUPOLEV ANT-29, DIP

Dimensions
Span
Length overall
(excluding guns)
Wing area
19.19m
11.65m
ll.lm
56.88 nf
62 ft min
38ft2 3 /4in
36 ft 5 in
612 ft2
Weights
Empty
Fuel/oil
Loaded (normal)
(maximum)
3,876kg
720+80 kg
4,960kg
5,300kg
8,545 Ib
1,587+176 Ib
1 0,935 Ib
ll,6841b
Performance
296km/h
at 4 km (13, 123 ft)
352 km/h
Time to climb 3 km (9,842 ft) 5.6 min
5 km (16,400 ft)
9.6 min
No other reliable data.
seated the pilot in the nose under a rearwardsliding canopy and a backseater over the trailing edge under a forward-sliding canopy (as
in early versions of the SB). The backseater
would have worked radio had it been fitted,
but his main task was to check the automatic
reloading of the guns and clear stoppages.
The wings were fitted with large two-part
ailerons and split flaps, while the tail carried
the wire-braced tailplane high up the fin, the
elevators and rudder having large Flettner
(servo) tabs. Like the ANT-21 and SB, the
main landing gears had single shock-struts
with a fork carrying the axle for a braked
wheel with a 900 x 280mm tyre which, after
retraction to the rear, partially projected to
minimise damage in a wheels-up landing. At
the rear was a large tailskid. Main-gear retraction, like flap operation, was hydraulic.
The primary armament comprised two APK8 recoilless guns, also known as DRP (Dynamo-Reaktivnaya Pushka), mounted one
above the other. The feed was via two chutes
on opposite sides of the fuselage. Each gun
196
had an unrifled barrel about 4m (13ft lin)

long, with a calibre of 102mm (4in). The firing
chamber was connected at the rear to a recoil tube terminating in the recoil-cancelling
divergent rear nozzle, extended a safe distance behind the rudder, through which propellant gas blasted when each round was
fired. Sighting was done with an optical sight
in a prominent fairing ahead of the windscreen, and could be assisted by firing tracer
from two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns in the
wing roots (these are shown in Shavrov's
drawings, but unlike the main armament they
do not appear ever to have been installed). It
was intended also to fit a pivot-mounted
ShKAS in the rear cockpit. There was no provision for a bomb load. Arguments over armament continued, but no attempt was
made to test the ANT-29 with the alternative
forward-firing armament of a 20mm ShVAK in
each wing root.
By the time it was on test this was no longer
an important aircraft, and (for reasons not
recorded) it failed NIl-WS testing.
Two views of ANT-29.
184 mph
219 mph
T U P O L E V A N T - 4 6 , DI-8
Tupolev ANT-46, DI-8

Purpose: An improved heavy fighter with
large-calibre recoilless guns.
Design Bureau: KOSOS-CAHI, chief
constructor A N Tupolev, who assigned this
aircraft to A A Arkhangel'skii.
This aircraft was a derivative of the SB
(ANT-40) fast bomber. The single prototype
was ordered in November 1934, on condition
that the SB (the first prototype of which had
flown a month previously) had priority and
would not }n any way be delayed. The DI-8
was created quickly and was flown by
Yu A Alekseyev on 1 st August (also reported
as 9th August) 1935. Factory testing was continued to June 1936, but the 'liquidation' of
Dimensions
Span
20.33 m
Length (excluding nose gun) 12.1 7 m
Wing area
55.7m2
66 ft 8% in
39 ft 1 13/1 in
600 ft2
Weights
Empty
Maximum loaded
7,687 Ib
1 2,242 Ib
3,487kg
5,553 kg
Performance
Maximum speed
388 km/h
at 4,250m (13,944 ft)
Time to climb 3 km (9,842 ft) 6.8 min
8,570 m
Service ceiling
1,780km
Range
Kurchevskii's gun bureau and the arrest for

treason and spying of Tupolev halted the programme.
Until recently little was known about the
ANT-46, and only one photograph had been
discovered. This did not show the nose clearly, and published accounts stated that the
ANT-46 was based on the SB but had a metalskinned nose containing machine guns. It is
now known that it had a glazed nose identical to that of the bomber. Instead of being a
two-seat aircraft it also had a navigator/
bomb-aimer in the nose, and an internal
bomb bay (for example, for eight FAB-100
bombs) with bomb doors. The interesting
feature was that incorporated in each wing
outboard of the fuel tanks, between the split

flaps and the ailerons, were single DRP (APK11) recoilless guns, each fed by an automatically indexed supply of 45mm (IXin)
ammunition, the rear blast tubes projecting
behind the trailing edge. Like the first SB the
fin and rudder had a squared-off top, and the
engines were not as previously thought
GR14s but, as on the first SB, nine-cylinder
Wright Cyclones of 710hp, driving Hamilton
two-blade propellers. Like the ANT-29, this
aircraft carried CAHI titles and the ANT number 46 on the tail.
This aircraft fulfilled expectations, but was
considered an outdated concept.
241 mph
28,120ft
1,1 00 miles
ANT-46, DI-8
ANT-46
197
T U P O L E V Tu-2 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S
Tupolev Tu-2 Experimental Versions

Purpose: To use Tu-2 aircraft for various
experimental purposes.
Design Bureau: Originally, CCB-29
(or TsKB-29) and GAZ (Factory) No 156.
Created during A N Tupolev's period in detention under a ludicrously false 'show trial'
charge, the Tu-2 (previously 'Aircraft 103', but
really the 58th 'ANT' design), was an outstanding multirole tactical bomber. Its ridiculous gestation, with its creator working on a
drawing board in a locked cell, meant that it
did not enter service until May 1942, but despite this some 3,300 were delivered from
Factories 156, 166 and 125. As soon as spare
examples became available they were
snapped up for use as test-beds. The very first
series aircraft, No 100716, was used to test
the ASh-83 engine, rated at l,900hp, driving
four-blade AV-5V propellers (replacing the
standard 1,850hp ASh-82FN driving the threeblade AV-5V-167 or four-blade square-tip
AV-9VF-21K). Maximum speed of this testbed was 635km/h (395mph) at 7,100m
(23,294ft).
Numerous test versions appeared in 1944,
including the first two of three Shturmovik
(armoured ground attack) versions with special armament, all proposed by Tupolev's armament brigade leader A D Nadashkevich.
The first, actually given the designation
Tu-2Sh, had its capacious weapon bay occupied by a specially designed aluminium box
housing 88 modified PPSh-41 infantry ma-
chine carbines (sub-machine guns). These

fired standard 7.62mm pistol ammunition,
and all fired together pointing obliquely down
at a 30 angle. The obvious shortcoming was
that, even though the drum magazines held
71 rounds, they were quickly emptied.
The second 1944 Sh version had a massive
75mm gun under the fuselage, reloaded by
the navigator. Two more ground-attack versions appeared in 1946. The first had the devastating forward-facing armament of two
20mm ShVAK, two NS-37 and two NS-45. The
37mm gun was 267mm (101/2in) long and
weighed 150kg (33lib). The 45mm version
had a shorter barrel but still fired its 1.065kg
(2.35 Ib) projectiles at 850m (2,790ft) per second, and weighed 152kg (335 Ib).
The last of these variants was the two-seat
RShR, or Tu-2RShR. This was a dedicated
anti-armour aircraft, carrying a high-velocity
57mm RShR automatic cannon with the barrel projecting ahead of the metal-skinned
nose and fitted with a prominent recoil brake.
The most startling modification was the
Tu-2 Paravan (paravane). Two of these were
built, to test a crude way of surviving impact
with barrage-balloon cables. A special cable
woven from high-tensile steel was run from
one wingtip to the other via the end of a
monocoque cone projecting over 6m (20ft)
ahead of the nose. The nose and wingtips
were reinforced. First flown in September
1944, this lash-up still reached 537km/h
(334mph) despite the strange installation and
a 150kg (331 Ib) balancing weight in the tail.

These trials were not considered to have
been successful.
Yet another 1944 modification was the
Tu-2K (Katapult), fitted with test ejectionseats. The first Tu-2K fitted the test seat in the
navigator's cockpit just behind the pilot. A
second ejection-seat tester had the experimental seat mounted in an open cockpit at
what had been the radio operator's station in
the rear fuselage.
In early 1945 the Type 104 radar-interception system began flight testing (the first to be
airborne in the Soviet Union). The system had
been designed from 1943, by a team led by
A L Mints, and the Type 104 test aircraft had
begun flight testing on 18th July 1944 but with
the vital radar simulated by ballast. The pilot
had a modified sight, which was later linked
to the radar, and fired two VYa-23 cannon installed under the forward fuselage. The rear
fuselage was faired over and contained nothing but a balancing mass.
The designation Tupolev Tu-2G was applied to several Gruzovoi (cargo) conversions. It appears that all of these were
experimental, carrying special loads either in
the remarkably large bomb bay or slung externally, and in many cases the load was
dropped by parachute. No fewer than 49 GAZ67b armoured reconnaissance cars were
dropped, the Tu-2G in this case being limited
to a height of 6km (19,685ft) and a speed of
378km/h (235mph).
Above left: Tu-2LL testing RD-45

(copy of Rolls-Royce Nene).
Above: Looking into the weapon bay of Tu-2Sh.
Left: Tu-2 Paravan.
198
T U P O L E V Tu-2 A N D Tu-4 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S
As explained in the stories of the Pe-2 and
Pe-8 experimental versions, the German
Fi 103 ('V. 1') flying bomb was the basis for a
large Soviet programme of air-launched
cruise missiles in the immediate post-war
era. One of the later variants was the 16Kh Priboi (surf, breaking waves). The fact this was
fitted with twin engines meant that it could be
carried under the Tu-2. The first modified
Tu-2 launch aircraft began testing at LII on
28th January 1948, and live missile launchings
took place on the Akhtuba range between
22nd July and 25th December 1948, testing
the D-312 and D-14-4 engines and various
electric or pneumatic flight-control systems.
The Tu-2 launch aircraft continued in the
process of refining guidance and improving

reliability until at least 4th November 1950, by
which time the Tu-4 was being modified as
carrier aircraft with one missile under each
outer nacelle. The WS rejected the 16Kh on
grounds of poor accuracy, and eventually the
argument reached Stalin who shortly before
his death terminated this missile.
Experimental Tu-2 aircraft were also used
to develop air-refuelling.
Not least, in the immediate post-war era
the Tu-2 was the most important aircraft converted to air-test turbojet engines. Occasionally the designation Tu-2LL (flying laboratory)
was used, but one of the most important
was (possibly unofficially) designated Tu-2N,
because it was allocated to test the imported

Rolls-Royce Nene. This required the test
engine to be mounted in a nacelle of large
diameter (basic engine diameter 1.26m, 4ft
11/2in). Later more than one Tu-2 was used to
test Soviet RD-45 and VK-1 derivatives of the
Nene, including variants with an afterburner.
However, these were all preceded by aircraft,
some of which had been Tupolev Type 61
prototypes, which were converted to test captured German axial engines: the BMW 003A
(Soviet designation RD-20) and the Junkers
Jumo 004B (Soviet designation RD-10). Another 61 prototype was used to test the first
Soviet turbojet to fly, the Lyul'kaTR-1, in 1946.

Design Bureau: OKB-156 of A N Tupolev.
In The Great Patriotic War the Soviet Union
had no modern strategic bomber. Stalin cast
covetous eyes on the Boeing B-29, and told
Tupolev and Myasishchev to design aircraft in
the same class. However, in 1944 three intact
B-29s fell into Soviet hands and it was decided just to copy them. Tupolev was given two
years to do this immense task. The first aircraft to appear was the Tu-70 transport, which
actually used the wing, engines and propellers of one of the B-29s. The production
bomber was designated Tu-4, and had Soviet
ASh-73TK engines of 2,400hp (more powerful
than the B-29 engine) and a totally new
defensive system with guns of 12.7mm (1st
Series), 20mm (from the 8th Series) or 23mm
calibre (from the 15th Series). Total production was close to 1,000. Several Tu-4 aircraft
were used in air-refuelling experiments.
The Tu-4T was a single unpressurized transport conversion which initially was used for
trials with 28 paratroops. In 1954 a small number
of 52-seat versions, again called Tu-4T, were

built for the VTA (military transport aviation).
Several Tu-4K conversions were used as
carrier aircraft for trials with the Mikoyan
KS-1 cruise missile, for use chiefly against
ships. This 3 tonne (6,614 Ib) turbojet-engined
weapon was a miniature swept-wing aeroplane with radar guidance (see page 101).
The Tu-4K played a major role in the development of the entire Kompleks (electronic
system) which after being cleared for production was installed in the Tu-16KS, which
was the operational carrier of these missiles.
Several Tu-4s were used for trials with other
missiles, the earliest being with captured
FilOS (so-called V-l) pulsejet cruise missiles
captured in 1944-45. From March 1945 the
Soviet X-10 (Kh-10) copy was on test, and
numerous examples were launched from
ground ramps and from Tu-2, Yer-2 and Pe-8
aircraft. In 1947 the Tu-4 became available,
and several were used to test the 14Kh-l and
twin-engined 16Kh, but all this work petered
out by July 1955 and none of these missiles
entered service.
At least 12 Tu-4s were used as engine test-
beds. Some of the early examples tested turboprops, of which the most startling were the
three aircraft whose No 3 (starboard inner)
engines were replaced by TV-12 turboprops.
Take-off power of this single-shaft engine was
initially ll,995hp, or almost six times that of
the engine it replaced. The colossal thrust,
which in the Tu-4 could not all be used, was
transmitted by a pair of AV-60 co-axial propellers each with four broad blades of 5.6m
(18ft 41/2in) diameter. Later this unique powerplant was developed into the NK-12M of
nearly 15,000hp for the Tu-95 and Tu-142.
Other turboprops tested included the exJunkers TV-2, Klimov VK-2 (TV-4), Kuznetsov
NK-2 and NK-4, and the Ivchenko AI-20, one
AI-20 installation (for the Ilyushin 18) having
the thrust line and jetpipe above the wing and
the other (for the Antonov 10 and 12) having
the thrust line and jetpipe below the wing. Jet
engines tested under the fuselage of Tu-4LL
aircraft included the Nene, AL-5, AL-7, 7F and
7P, AM-3 (RD-3), AM-5 and 5F, VD-5, VD-7,
VK-2, VK-7 and VK-11.
Tu-4 test-bed for NK-12 turboprop.
199
T U P O L E V Tu-16 E X P E R I M E N T A L V E R S I O N S

experimental purposes, and to take the
basic design further.
Design Bureau: OKB-156 of A N Tupolev,
Moscow.
This graceful twin-jet bomber sustained what
was in financial terms the most important
programme in the entire history of the
Tupolev design bureau up to that time. Since
then, because of inflation, the Tu-154 and
Tu-22/Tu-22M have rivalled it, though they
were produced in smaller numbers. The prototype Tu-16, the Type 88, was a marriage of
upgraded B-29 technology in structures, systems and to some degree in avionics, with totally new swept-wing aerodynamics and
what were in the early 1950s super-power turbojet engines. The Tu-16 entered production
in 1953 powered by Zubets (Mikulin KB)
RD-3M engines of 8,200kg (18,078 Ib) thrust.
The second series block had the RD-3M-200
of 8,700kg (19,180 Ib) followed by the 9,500kg
(20,944 Ib) RD-3M-500, which was then retrofitted to most earlier aircraft.
From 1953 the basic aircraft was repeatedly examined against alternatives based as far
as possible on the same airframe but using
different propulsion systems. Most of the
studies had four engines. Tupolev had originally schemed the 88 around two Lyul'ka
AL-5 turbojets, but the design grew in weight
to match the big AM-3 engine, and this was
the key to its win over the smaller Ilyushin
with the Lyul'ka engines. In parallel with the
production aircraft one project team led by

Dmitri S Markov studied versions of the 88
with not two but four AL-5 engines, and then
four of the more powerful (typically 14,330 Ib,
6,500kg) AL-7 engines. These Type 90s would
have been excellent bombers, with increased power and much better engine-out
performance, but the decision was taken not
to disrupt production. On the other hand, virtually the same inboard wing and engine installation was then used in the Tu-110
transport, two of which were built using the
Tu-104 as a basis. Some of the four-engined
bomber studies had engines in external nacelles hung on underwing pylons.
From 1954 Type 88 prototypes and a wide
range of production Tu-16s were used over a
period exceeding 40 years as experimental
aircraft. Some carried out pioneer trials in aerial refuelling at jet speeds.
One large group of about 20 aircraft was
kept busy in the development of avionics, including navigation, bombing and cartographic guidance, parent control of drones and
targets, and the direction of self-defence gunnery systems.
Probably the most important single duty of
Tu-16LL (flying laboratory) aircraft was to airtest new types of turbojet and turbofan engine.
In each case the engine on test would be
mounted in a nacelle either carried inside the
weapon bay or, more often, recessed into it.
Usually the test engine would be suspended
on vertical hydraulic jacks or a large pivoted
beam so that in flight it could be extended
down fully into the airstream, with its efflux

well clear of the rear fuselage. In many cases
the engine pod or the Tu-16 fuselage ahead
of it would be fitted with a fairing or door
which could be left behind or opened as the
pod was extended for test. Among the engines
air-tested under Tu-16LL aircraft were: the
Ivchenko (later Progress) AI-25, Lyul'ka AL-7F1, AL-7F-2, AL-7F-4 and AL-31F, Solov'yov (Aviadvigatel) D-30, D-30K, D-30KP and D-30F6 (in
MiG-31 installation), Lotarev (Ivchenko
Progress) D-36, Kuznetsov NK-6 (with and
without afterburner) and NK-8-2, Tumanskii
(Soyuz) R-l 1AF-300 (Yak-28 nacelle) and R-15300 (in the Ye-150 and the totally different MiG25 installation), Metskhvarishvili R-2I-300 and
R-21F with Ye-8 inlet, Khachaturov R-27 versions (including the vectored R-27V-300 in a
complete Yak-36M prototype fuselage, Mikulin
(Soyuz) RD-3M (many versions), Kolesov
(RKBM) RD-36-41 and RD-36-51, and Dobrynin
(RKBM) VD-7, VD-7M and VD-19 (in a proposed Tu-128 installation), etc.
One Tu-16 had its entire nose replaced by
that intended for the Myasishchev M-55, in
order to test the comprehensive suite of sensors. Another tested a scaled version of the
bogie main landing gear for the Myasishchev
M-4 and 3M strategic bombers, replacing the
normal nose landing gear. A new twin-wheel
truck was added at the tail. According to documents a Tu-16 with outer wings removed
tested the complete powerplant of the Yak-38
(presumably in free hovering flight) though
photographs have not been discovered.
Above left: Tu-16LL with AI-25 turbofan on test

in mock-up Aero L-39 fuselage.
Left and above right: Tu-16LL used to test two

different (unidentified) large turbofans, one
shown retracted and the other extended.
200
TUPOLEV Tu-155
Tupolev Tu-155
Purpose: To investigate the use of cryogenic
fuels.
Design Bureau: ANTK A N Tupolev,
Moscow. Technical Director Valery
Solozobov, cryogenic fuels Chief Designer
Vladimir Andreyev.
For many years the USSR and its successor
states have been replacing petroleum by natural gas, which in 1999 provides over 53 per
cent of the total of all Russia's energy supplies. Since 1982 what is today ANTK Tupolev
has been investigating the use of natural gas
and also hydrogen as fuels for aircraft,
because of their availability and clean burning qualities. However, for use in vehicles
both have to be liquefied by being cooled to
exceedingly low temperatures. Liquid hydrogen (LH2) boils at -255C, an unimaginably
low temperature at which (for example) all
conventional lubricating oils are rock-solid.
Moreover, this fuel is very expensive, and hazardous from the viewpoints of detonation and
fire. On the other hand, liquefied natural gas
(LNG) is widely available, at least threefold
cheaper in Russia than aviation kerosenes,
and also significantly improves flight performance. It is straightforward to store and han-
die, and less fire/explosion hazardous even

than today's kerosenes. After years of laboratory work an existing civil transport was selected for use as an LNG flight test-bed. It has
been flying since 1988. All work is now directed at the Tu-156, the first LNG aircraft designed to go into service.
To flight-test an LNG system ANTK Tupolev
bailed back a Tu-154, No 85035, and replaced
the No 3 (starboard) engine with an NK-88,
fed with LNG by a completely separate fuel
system. The NK-88 is a derivative of the
Kuznetsov NK-8-2 turbofan (still fitted in the
Nos 1 and 2 positions), with thrust unchanged
at 20,945 Ib (9,500kg). The successor to
Kuznetsov's bureau is Samara/Trud. The
complex feed system is shown in a drawing.
The main tank, of 10ft 2in (3.1m) diameter
and 17ft 81/2in (5.4m) long, is of AMG6 aluminium alloy, with a 50mm (2in) lagging of
foamed polyurethane. The NK-88 engine has
a dedicated two-stage centrifugal pump driven by a bleed-air turbine. LNG comes in at
-152C and is passed through a heat ex1: Technicians
2: Control engineers
3: Hydrogen and helium bottles
4: Guest cabin
5: Buffer zone
changer to convert it to gas. The engine combustion chamber is able to accept either this
supply of NG or, on command, to switch to
the kerosene supply normally used for the
other engines. Work is still underway on a
low-emissions chamber which will be used
on the improved NK-89 engine to be fitted to
the Tu-156. The definitive Tu-156 is expected
to have the fuel in giant saddle tanks along the
top of the fuselage. Instead, to reduce time
and cost, at least the first Tu-156 has a main
tank (capacity 28,6601b, 13 tonnes) behind
the passenger cabin and, to preserve centre
of gravity position, an auxiliary tank (8,377 Ib,
3,800kg) in the forward underfloor baggage
hold. This reduces payload from 18 tonnes
to 14 (30,864 Ib). Range will be 1,616 miles
(2,600km) on LNG only, or 2,051 miles
(3,300km) on combined LNG and kerosene.
Eventually the Earth's store of petroleum
will run dry. It is pointless to say 'More keeps
being discovered'. The world's aircraft will
then have no alternative but to switch to another fuel, and LNG is the obvious choice.
6: Hermetically sealed fuel cabin

7: Auxiliary drain/vent
8: Main drain/vent
9: Main control complex.
10: Nitrogen bottles
Below: Tu-155.
Photographs on the following page:
Left: Tu-155 interior.
Internal arrangement of the Tu-155
Right. Model of Tu-156.
201
TUPOLEV Tu-155 / EXPERIMENTAL TEST-BEDS
Experimental Test-beds
Purpose: To use established aircraft to
flight-test experimental items.
Design Bureau: Various.
In Russia flying test-beds are as a class called
by the suffix initials LL, from Letayushchaya
Laboratoriya, flying laboratory. One of the
most important LL tasks is to flight-test new
types of engine. Several experimental engines have appeared in this book already, for
example rockets to boost the speed and altitude of fighters, and the awesome TV-12 turboprop tested on a Tu-4. Until the 1980s the
most important LL for flight-testing engines
was the Tu-16. As explained in the entry on
202
that aircraft, engines had to be installed for

testing in or under its bomb bay. In recent
years the Ilyushin IL-76 has come to the fore
as a totally capable engine test-bed, handicapped only by its considerable size and operating cost. Originally designed as the IL-76M
military transport, this superb aircraft is an
ideal LL on which to hang virtually any type of
aircraft propulsion system, usually using the
No 2 (port inner) underwing pylon attachment. A considerable fleet of IL-76 aircraft is
available in former Soviet territories. Several
are operated by the Gromov Flight Research
Institute (or LII), and are available for hire.
Their interiors are already packed with sen-
sors and loggers, computers, oscilloscopes

and many kinds of instrumentation, overseen
by a test and research crew which usually
numbers five. The flight crew typically numbers three. Among the engines tested are the
NK-86, D-18T and PS-90A turbofans, and the
D-236 and NK-93 propfans. One of the photographs shows a former IL-76M used for testing large turbofans of the D-18 family. The
other shows a former civil IL-76T used to test
the TV7-117S turboprop and its six-blade
Stupino SV-34 propeller. The propeller blades
are heavily strain-gauged, the instrumentation cable being led forward from the tip of
the spinner.
E X P E R I M E N T A L TEST-BEDS
Another Ilyushin aircraft used in significant

numbers as an experimental test-bed is the
IL-18. Possibly as many as 30 have been used,
mainly at the Zhukovskii and Pushkin test
centres, for upwards of 50 test programmes.
Nearly all are basically of the IL-18D type,
powered by four 4,250hp AI-20M turboprops.
The most famous of these aircraft is the IL-18
No75442, named Tsyklon (cyclone). Instantly
recognisable from its nose boom like a jousting lance, this meteorological research aircraft is equipped with something in excess of
30 sensors used to gether data about atmospheric temperature, pressure and pressure
gradient, humidity, liquid and solid particulate matter (including measurement of
droplet and particle sizes) and various other
factors which very according to the mission.
The sensors extend from nose to tail and from
tip to tip. Other IL-18 and IL-18D aircraft have
helped to develop every kind of radar from
fighter nosecones to giant SLARs (slide-looking airborne radar) and special mapping
and SAR (synthetic-array radar) installations.
A small number based at Pushkin tested the

main radars and pointed radomes of supersonic aircraft, though this was done mainly by
the Tu-134.
Total production of the Tu-134 passenger
twin-jet was 853. Of course, the majority were
delivered to Aeroflot and foreign customers,
but a few went to the WS. From the mid1970s aircraft built as passenger transports
began to be converted for use as military
crew trainers, including the Tu-134BU for military and civil pilots to Cat IIIA (autoland) standard, Tu-134Sh for navigators and visual
bomb aimers (actually dropping bombs to
FAB-250 (551 Ib) size), Tu-134BSh for Tu-22M
Top: IL-76LL with TV7-1 ITS

Centre: Nose of IL-18 Tsyklon
Bottom: Tu-134 radar testbed
Opposite page, bottom: IL-76LL with D-18T
203
E X P E R I M E N T A L TEST-BEDS
Above: Tu-134 radar testbed

Left.Tu-134IMARK
Centre left: IL-28 for ski research
Bottom: Yak-25M testing Yak-28 engine icing
navigators and bomb-aimers, and Tu-134UBL

for Tu-160 pilots. These are not experimental,
nor is the Tu-134SKh with comprehensive
navaids and avionics for worldwide land-use
and economic survey. On the other hand at
least 15 aircraft were converted for equipment testing and research. One has flown
over 6,000 hours investigating the behaviour
of equipment and Cosmonauts underweightless (zero-g) conditions. Several have been
fitted with nose radars under development
for other aircraft, including the installations
for the Tu-144, Tu-160 and MiG-29. With the
designation IMARK, aircraft 65906 has tested
the Zemai polarized mapping radar able to
operate on wavelengths of 4, 23, 68 or 230cm
(from \lAm to 7ft 7in). Arrays of antennas look
down and to the right side from the starboard
side of the fuselage and a large ventral container. A generally similar but more versatile
test aircraft is 65908. This is based at
Zhukovskii together with a Tu-134 fitted with
a giant parachute in the tail for emergency
use during potentially dangerous research
into deep-stall phenomena, which caused
the loss of several aircraft with T-tails and
aft-mounted engines.
Photographs show two other aircraft from
the many hundreds used in the former Soviet
Union for special tests. One shows an IL-28
used for research into the design, materials
and behaviour of skis on different kinds of
surface. A large ski mounted under the bomb
bay near the centre of gravity could be
rammed down against the ground by hydraulic jacks. On the ski were test shoes of
different sizes, shapes and materials. The
other photograph shows the Yak-25 test-bed
fitted on the starboard side with the engine installation proposed for the Yak-28, with a
sharp lip and moving central cone. Ahead of
it was a water spray rig for icing trials.
204
VAKHMISTROV ZVENO
Vakhmistrov Zveno
Purpose: To enable a large aircraft to carry
one or more small ones long distances, for
example to attack targets that would
otherwise be out of reach.
Design Bureau: Not an OKB but engineer
Vladimir Sergeyevich Vakhmistrov working
at the LII (flight research institute).
In 1930 Vakhmistrov suggested that a cheap
glider might be used as an aerial gunnery target, and he quickly perfected a way of carrying such a glider above the upper wing of an
R-l reconnaissance aircraft and releasing it in
flight. This gave Vakhmistrov the idea of using
a large aircraft to carry a small one on longrange flights over hostile territory. The small
aircraft could either be fighters to protect a
large bomber, or bomb-carrying attack aircraft or camera-carrying fast reconnaissance
aircraft which could make a pass over a target
while the parent aircraft stood off at a safe distance. In each case the difficult part was hooking on again for the long flight home. After
presenting the WS and LII management with
calculations Vakhmistrov received permission to try out his idea. This led to a succession of Zveno (link) combinations:
Z-l
This featured a twin-engined Tupolev TB-1
bomber carrying a Tupolev I-4 fighter above
each wing. The fighters were of the I-4Z version, three of which were converted for these
experiments with short stub lower wings and
attachment locks on the landing gear and
under the rear fuselage. The bomber was provided with attachments for the Zveno aircraft
above each wing: two small pyramids for the
landing gear and a large tripod for the rearfuselage attachment.
The first flight took place from Monino on
3rd December 1931. The TB-1 was flown
by AI Zalevskii and A R Sharapov, with
Vakhmistrov as observer. The fighters, with
ski landing gears, were flown by V P Chkalov
and A S Anisimov. The take-off was made
with the fighter engines at full power. The
TB-1 copilot forgot the release sequence and
released Chkalov's axle before releasing the
aft attachment, but Chkalov reacted instantly
and released the rear lock as the fighter
reared nose-up. The second fighter was released correctly. For a few seconds the TB-1
flew with no tendency to roll with an I-4Z on
one wing.
Z-la
First flown in September 1933, this comprised
the TB-1 carrying two Polikarpov I-5 fighters.
The latter were fitted with a reinforcing plate
under the rear fuselage carrying the rear holddown, but had no special designation. The pilots were P M Stefanovskii (TB-1) and
I F Grodz' and V K Kokkinaki (I-5).
Z-2
This was the first of the more ambitious hookups using a TB-3 as parent aircraft. The
bomber was an early TB-3/4 M-l 7, and it was
given attachments for an I-5 above each wing
and a third above the fuselage with its wheels
on a special flat platform. On the first test in
August 1934 the TB-3 was flown by Zalevskii
and the fighters by T P Suzi, S P Suprun and
T T Al'tnov.
Z-3
This combination would have hung a Grigorovich I-Z monoplane fighter under each
wing of the TB-3. It was not flown.
Z-4
No information.
The complete sequence of Zveno developments (not all were tried).
205
VAKHMISTROV ZVENO
Z-5
This was the first attempt to hook back on.
The parent aircraft was again the TB-3/4 M-l 7,
and the fighter was an I-Z fitted with a large
suspension superstructure of steel tubes, plus
a curved upper guide rail terminating in a
sprung hook releasable by the pilot (almost
identical to the arrangement used on the airship-borne US Navy F9C Sparrowhawks). This
was designed to hook on a large steel-tube
trapeze under the bomber, which was folded
up for take-off and landing. V A Stepanchyonok flew the I-Z on several tests with the
bomber flown as straight and level as possible
by Stefanovskii. The first hook-on took place
on 23rd March 1935; this was a world first.
Z-6
Zveno-2
Top: Preparing Zveno-1.

Centre: Zveno-2.
Bottom: Zveno-5.
Photographs on the
opposite page
Right: Zveno-6.
Centre right: Aviamatka
flypast.
Centre left: Detail of I-16
suspension for SPB.
Bottom: SPB; this was
partly a Tupolev
programme.
206
The final combination of the original series

was the mating of two I-16 monoplane fighters
hung under the wings of the TB-3. The fighters
were provided with local reinforcement
above the wings to enable them to be hung
from sliding horizontal spigots on large tripod
links of streamlined light-alloy tube pin-jointed to the bomber's wing structure. Bracing
struts linked the bomber to a latch above the
fighter's rear fuselage, and one of the fighters
(M-25A-engined No 0440) was photographed
with a lightweight pylon above the forward
fuselage to pick up under the bomber's wing.
The first test took place in August 1935; Stefanovskii flew the TB-3 and the fighter pilots
were K K Budakov and AI Nikashin.
Aviamatka
Named 'mother aircraft', this amazing test,
not part of the original plan, took place in November 1935. The TB-3/4M-17 took off from
Monino with an I-5 above each wing and an
I-16 below each wing. At altitude it folded
down the under-fuselage trapeze and Stepanchenok hooked on the I-Z, making a combination of six aircraft of four types all locked
together. After several passes all the fighters
released simultaneously. By this time
Vakhmistrov had schemes for up to eight
fighters of later types all to be carried by large
aircraft such as the full-scale VS-2 tailless
bomber projected by Kalinin. Instead Stalin's
'terror' caused the whole effort to wither, but
there were still to be further developments.
SPB (Russian initials for fast dive bomber)
This was a special version of the Polikarpov
I-16 equipped with a rack to carry an FAB-250
(bomb of 250kg, 551 Ib) under each wing.
Such an aircraft could not have safely taken
off from the ground. In 1937 a later TB-3/4AM34RN was made available, and two SPB aircraft were hung under its wings. The first test
took place on 12th July 1937, the TB-3 being
flown by Stefanovskii and the dive bombers
by A S Nikolayev and IA Taborovskii.
VAKHMISTROV ZVENO
Zveno-6
Aviamatka
Z-7
In November 1939 one final combination was

flown: the TB-3/4AM-34RN took off with an I16 under each wing and a third hooked under
the fuselage in flight (with severe difficulty).
The I-16 pilots were Stefanovskii, Nyukhtikov
and Suprun.
In early 1940 the WS decided to form a
Zveno combat unit. Based at Yevpatoriya, this
was equipped with six modified TB-3/4AM34RN and 12 SPB dive bombers. During the
Great Patriotic War a famous mission was
flown on 25th August 1941 which destroyed
the Danube bridge at Chernovody in Romania, on the main rail link to Constanta. Surviving SPBs flew missions in the Crimea.
207
YAKOVLEV EXPERIMENTAL PISTON-ENGINED FIGHTERS
Yakovlev Experimental Piston Eiigiiied Fighters
Purpose: to modify established aircraft for

Design Bureau: OKB of A S Yakovlev,
evacuated to Factory No 153 at Novosibirsk
until in late 1944 it returned to Factory 115
on Leningradskii Prospekt, Moscow.
From the pioneer Yak-1 (I-26) fighter Yakovlev
derived the UTI-26 two-seat trainer, which in
turn was 'reverse-engineered' into the Yak-7
fighter. Numerous special variants tested
long-range tankage, different engines and armament, and many experimental fits.
Two series Yak-7B fighters were set aside
for testing pressurized cockpits. One, No 0805, was fitted with a Shcherbakov cockpit
completely encased in rubber and with a
lightweight canopy giving a much better view
than that of the pressurized Polikarpov bi-
planes. The other, with bold white-bordered

national insignia, had a hermetically sealed
metal (0.8mm AMTs aluminium alloy) cockpit with a heavily framed sliding canopy. In
each case the pressurization to 0.2kg/cm2
(2.85 lb/in2) was by an engine-driven blower.
Both were designated Yak-7GK.
The Yak UTI-26PVRD again repeated research done with a Polikarpov biplane, in this
case the I-153/2DM-4. The DM-4 family were
the ultimate types of ramjet developed by
IA Merkulov. The final DM-4S had a diameter
of 500mm (1ft 7%in), a length of 2.3m (7ft
61/2in) and weight of 45kg (99Ib). The two together burned ordinary petrol (gasoline) from
the main aircraft tanks at the rate of 24kg
(53 Ib) per minute. The test aircraft had been
the UTI-26-2, the second prototype twoseater. The rear cockpit was re-equipped for
Yak-7GK (Yak-7B with pressurized cockpit)
208
a test observer, and the main engine was

changed to a l,260hp M-105PF. The pilot
could switch fuel to the ramjets and press an
ignition button to boost speed from 494km/h
(307mph) to 513km/h (319mph) at sea level
and to 633km/h (393mph) at 7,300m
(23,950ft). The trouble was, though these
speeds were a slight improvement over the
basic aircraft, for most of the mission the ramjets were dead weight and offered considerable extra drag, reducing speed to 460km/h
(286mph) at sea level and 564km/h (339mph)
at 6km (19,685ft). The ramjets were first fitted
to this aircraft in 1942, but they moved the
centre of gravity too far forward and caused
fuel leaks because of combustion vibration.
The aircraft was put on one side until on 15th
May 1944 SNAnokhin began a proper LIlNKAP test programme. It was judged that the
ramjets were not worth having.
Unfortunately, the only known photograph
of the Yak-7L is a head-on view. This merely
shows that the leading edge of the wing of
this aircraft was quite sharp (ie, of small radius) and that the aerofoil profile was almost
symmetric except towards the root where,
like the wing of the North American P-51 Mustang, it sloped downwards. The letter L in the
designation stood for Laminarnyi (laminar).
As in the Mustang wing, the maximum thickness was at almost 40 per cent chord. Probably influenced by the American fighter, this
one-off aircraft is unlikely to have flown before 1943, but the date on the official photograph is unreadable.
YAKOVLEV EXPERIMENTAL P I S T O N - E N G I N E D FIGHTERS

Yak-7GK.
This page, above and below: Two views of
UTI-26PVRD.
UTI-26 PVRD
209
YAKOVLEV E X P E R I M E N T A L PISTON-ENGINED FIGHTERS
Above: Yak-7L.
Left: Tail of Yak-9P with side-thrust rocket.
Below centre: Yak-3R.

Bottom: RD-lKhZ engine in Yak-3RD,
with the fairing removed.
Yak-3RD
210
The fastest Yak piston-engined fighter was

the Yak-3RD. The Yak-3 was smaller than
any other major fighter of the Second World
War, and the standard aircraft, powered by
the l,260hp VK-105PF2, had a maximum
speed of 646km/h (401 mph) at around 4km
(13,120ft). The RD was a normal series aircraft (Saratov-built No 18-20) fitted with an
RD-1 rocket engine in the tail. Developed by
V P Glushko, this engine was a pilot-controllable single-chamber unit fed by pumps driven by the main engine with 50kg (1 lOlb) of
kerosene and 200kg (441 Ib) of concentrated
nitric acid, supplied from tanks in the wings.
Most photographs show this red-painted aircraft with the thrust chamber replaced by a
pointed tailcone. The rudder was increased
in chord to compensate for loss of the lower
portion, and the elevators were cut off at the
root and skinned with Dl alloy. OKB test pilot
V L Rastorguyev began flight testing on 22nd
December 1944. The RD-1 fitted was No 009;
this proved to be unreliable, and also failed to
give its brochure thrust until the aircraft had
climbed to about 6,500m (21,325ft). It was replaced by an RD-lKhZ (No018), with hypergolic chemical ignition. A level speed of
782km/h (486mph) was then recorded at
7,800m (25,590ft), but malfunctions continued. On 14th May 1945 there was an explosion during a ground start. Flying resumed on
14th August 1945, and on the following day
the kerosene pipe fractured. A day later (16th
August), after the rocket had been shut down
after a maximum-speed run, the aircraft was
observed gradually to pitch over and dive into
the ground, Rastorguyev being killed. The
cause was never established.
The designation Yak-9P was used twice.
The first was a variant with a ShVAK cannon
(Pushechnyi) replacing the usual 12.7mm
UBS above the engine. The second use of the
designation came in 1946, when it was applied to two of the first Yak-9 fighters built at
Factory No 166 at Omsk, Nos 0I-03 and 0I-04.
These were completed with newly designed
all-metal wings, because there was no longer
a shortage of light alloys. They were exhaustively tested by Yuri A Antipov and VI Ivanov
throughout July 1946, and later ten pre-production aircraft were produced at Factory
No 153 at Novosibirsk. A surprising amount of
effort was put into perfecting an upgraded allmetal Yak-9, because - despite the imminence of jet fighters - no fewer than 772 were
built at Factory 153, ending in March 1948.
The photo shows the tail of P0415313, with
special rudder and elevator instrumentation
and a side-thrust rocket attached by a frame
to the rear fuselage.
Y A K O V L E V E X P E R I M E N T A L JET F I G H T E R S
Yakovlev Experimental Jet Fighters

Purpose: To create fighters and interceptors
with new and untried features.
Design Bureau: OKB-115 of A S Yakovlev,
Moscow.
Yak-1000
Yakovlev was one of the two General Constructors who created the first jet aircraft in
the Soviet Union (the other was Mikoyan).
Yakovlev cheated by, in effect, putting a turbojet into a Yak-3 ! A succession of single-engined jet fighters followed, one of which was
the Yak-25 of 1947 (confusingly, Yakovlev
later used the same designation for a different
aircraft, see later). This achieved the excellent speed of 972km/h (604mph) on the
1,588kg (3,500 Ib) thrust of a single RollsRoyce Derwent engine (thus, it was faster
than a Gloster Meteor on half as many Derwent engines). The first of two Yak-25 prototypes was modified to evaluate an idea
proposed by the DA (Dal'nyaya Aviatsiya,
long-range aviation). Called Burlaki (bargehauler) this scheme was to arrange for a
strategic bomber to tow a jet fighter on the
end of a cable until it was deep in enemy airspace and likely to encounter hostile fighters.
The friendly fighter pilot would then start his
engine and cast off, ready for combat. The
first of the two Yak-25 prototypes was accordingly fitted with a long tube projecting
ahead of the nose, with a special connector
on the end. The two aircraft would take off independently. The bomber would unreel a
cable with a special connector on the end,
into which the fighter would thrust its probe,
as in probe/drogue flight refuelling. It would
thus have a free ride to the target area. The
idea was eventually rejected: towing the
fighter reduced the range of the bomber, the
fighter might not have enough range to get
home (unless by chance it could find a friendly bomber and hook on), the long tube affected the fighter's agility and, worst of all, the
fighter pilot would have to engage the enemy
after several hours sitting in a freezing cockpit
with no pressurization.
One of the least-known Soviet aircraft was
the Yak-1000. The late Jean Alexander was
the only Western writer to suggest that this
extraordinary creation might have been intended purely for research, and even she repeated the universal belief that its engine was
a Lyul'ka AL-5. In fact, instead of that impressive axial engine of 5,000kg (11,023 Ib) thrust,
the strangely numbered Yak-1000 had a RollsRoyce Derwent of less than one-third as
much thrust. Designed in 1948-49, this aircraft
was notable for having a wing and horizontal
Centre: Yak-1000.
Bottom: Yak-25E Burlaki.
211
tail of startlingly short span (wing span was a
mere 4.52m, 14ft l0in), almost of delta form
and with a thickness/chord ratio nowhere
greater than 4.5 per cent and only 3.4 per cent
at the wing root. Behind the rear spar the entire wing comprised a powerful slotted flap,
the outer portion of which incorporated a rectangular aileron. The tailplane was fixed halfway up the fin, which again was a lowaspect-ratio delta fitted with a small rudder at
the top. The long tube-like fuselage had the
air inlet in the nose, the air duct being immediately bifurcated to pass either side of the
cockpit, which was pressurized and had an
ejection-seat. The inevitably limited supply of
597 litres (131 Imperial gallons) of fuel was
housed in one tank ahead of the engine and
another round the jetpipe. The only way to
arrange the landing gear was to have a nosewheel and single (not twin, as commonly
thought) mainwheel on the centreline and
small stabilizing wheels under the wings.
Flight controls were manual, the flaps, landing gear and other services were worked
pneumatically, and the structure was light
alloy except for the central wing spar which
was high-tensile SOKhGSNA steel. Only one
flight article was built, the objective being a
speed in level flight of 1,750km/h (1,087mph,
Mach 1.65). Taxi testing began in 1951, and
as soon as high speeds were reached the
Yak-1000 exhibited such dangerous instability that no attempt was made to fly it.
In the jet era there is no doubt that
Yakovlev's most important aircraft were the
incredibly varied families of tactical twin-jets
with basic designations from Yak-25 (the second time this designation was used) to
Yak-28. Some of the sub-variants were experimental in nature. One was the Yak-27V, V almost certainly standing for Vysotnyi, high
altitude, because it was specifically intended
for high-altitude interceptions. This was a single flight article, which had originally been
constructed as the Yak-121, the prototype for
the Yak-27 family, with callsign Red 55. To
turn it into the Yak-27V it was converted into
a single-seater, and a Dushkin S-155 rocket
engine was installed in the rear fuselage, replacing the braking parachute. The S-155 had
a complicated propellant supply and control
system, because it combined petrol (gasoline) fuel with a mixture of RFNA (red fuming
nitric acid) and HTP (high-test hydrogen peroxide) oxidant, plus a nitrogen purging system to avoid explosions. Brochure thrust of
the S-155 was 1,300kg (2,866 Ib) at sea level,
rising to 1,550kg (3,417 Ib) at 12km (39,370ft).
Airframe modifications included adding an
extended and drooped outer leading edge to
the wing (though the chordwise extension
Top: Yak-27V.
Three views of Yak-28-64 (two R-8T and two R-3S).
212
was not as large as in the later Yak-28 family),
converting the horizontal tail into one-piece
stabiliators, fitting the rearranged tankage,
and replacing the nose radar by a metal nose.
The two NR-30 cannon were retained. The
RD-9AK engines were replaced by the specially developed RD-9AKE, with a combustion
chamber and fuel system specially tailored
for high altitudes; thrust was unchanged at
2,800kg (6,173 lb).Yakovlev hired VGMukhin
to join the OKB's large test-pilot team because he had tested the mixed-power Mikoyan Ye-50 with a similar S-155 rocket engine.
He opened the test-flying programme on 26th
April 1956. Service ceiling of the Yak-27V was
found to be 23.5km (77,100ft), and level
speed above 14km (45,900ft) about 1,913km/h
(l,189mph, Machl.8).
Yakovlev had been fortunate in having
members of this prolific twin-jet family in series production at four large factories, No 99 at
Ulan-Ude, No 125 at Irkutsk, No 153 at Novosibirsk and No 292 at Saratov. Unfortunately, by
1964 no new orders were being placed and
the end was in sight. In that year, right at the
end of the development of the family,
Yakovlev tried to prolong its life by undertaking a major redesign. He sent his son Sergei to
study the variable inlets and engine installation of the rival Su-15, and he also carefully
studied the MiG Ye-155, the prototypes for the
MiG-25. All these were faster than any Yaks,
and they had engines in the fuselage. Accordingly, whilst keeping as many parts unchanged as possible, the Yak-28-64 was
created, and this single flight article, callsign
Red 64, began flight testing in 1966. The engines remained the R-l 1AF2-300, as used in
most Yak-28s (and also, as the R-l 1F2-300, in
many MiG-21s), with dry and afterburning
ratings of 3,950kg (8,708 Ib) and 6,120kg
(13,492 Ib) respectively. Instead of being hung
under the wings they were close together in
the rear fuselage, fed by vertical two-dimensional inlets with variable profile and area.
Drop tanks could be hung under the inlet
ducts on the flanks of the broad fuselage. This
wide fuselage added almost a metre to the
span (from 11.64m, 38ft 2%in, to 12.5m, 41ft),
and removing the engines from the wings enabled the ailerons to be extended inboard to
meet the flaps. Armament comprised four
guided missiles, two from the K-8 family (typically an R-8M and an R-8T) and two R-3S
copies of the American Sidewinder. To
Yakovlev's enormous disappointment, the
huge sum spent by the OKB in developing this
aircraft was wasted. Its performance was if
anything inferior to that of the Yak-28P, and
handling was unsatisfactory to the point of
being unacceptable.
Top: Yak-36 c/n 38, with rocket pods.
Two views of Yak-36 experimental VTOL aircraft.
213
In 1960 Yakovlev watched the Short SC.l
cavorting at Farnborough and became captivated by the concept of SWP (Russian for
VTOL, vertical take-off and landing). Though
he received funding for various impressive
Yak-33 studies in which batteries of lift jets
would have been installed in a supersonic attack aircraft, he quickly decided to build a
simple test-bed in the class of the Hawker
P.1127, with vectored nozzles. No turbofan
existed which could readily be fitted with four
nozzles, as in the British aircraft, but, after
funding was provided by the MAP and the
propulsion institute CIAM, K Khachaturov in
the Tumanskii engine bureau developed the
R-27 fighter turbojet into the R-27V-300 with a
nozzle able to be vectored through a total
angle of 100. Rated initially at 6,350kg
(14,0001b), this engine had a diameter of
1,060mm (3ft 5%in) and so it was a practical
proposition to fit two close side-by-side in a
small fuselage. Of course, the engines had to
be handed, because the rotating final nozzle
had to be on the outboard side. This was the
basis for the Yak-36 research aircraft, intended to explore what could be done to perfect
the handling of a jet-lift aeroplane able to
hover. To minimise weight, the rest of the aircraft was kept as small as possible. The engines were installed in the bottom of the
fuselage with nozzles at the centre of gravity,
fed directly by nose inlets. The single-seat
cockpit, with side-hinged canopy and later fitted with a seat which was arranged to eject
automatically in any life-threatening situation, was directly above the engines. The
small wing, tapered on the leading edge and
with -5 anhedral, was fitted with slotted flaps
and powered ailerons. Behind the engines
the fuselage quickly tapered to a tailcone,
and carried a vertical tail swept sharply back
to place the swept horizontal tail, mounted
214
near the top, as far back as possible. The

tailplane was fixed, and the elevators and
rudder were fully powered. For control at low
airspeeds air bled from the engines was blasted through downward-pointing reaction-control nozzles on the wingtips and under the
tailcone and on the tip of a long tubular boom
projecting ahead of the nose. The nose and
tail jets had twin inclined nozzles which were
controllable individually to give authority in
yaw as well as in pitch. The landing gear was
a simple four-point arrangement, with
wingtip stabilizing wheels, of the kind seen
on many earlier Yak aircraft. The OKB factory
built a static-test airframe and three flight articles, Numbered 36, 37 and 38. Tunnel testing at CAHI (TsAGI) began in autumn 1962, LII
pilot Yu A Garnayev made the first outdoor
tethered flight on 9th January 1963 and
Valentin Mukhin began free hovering on 27th
September 1964. On 7th February 1966 No 38
took off vertically, accelerated to wingborne
flight and then made a fast landing with nozzles at 0. On 24th March 1966 a complete
transition was accomplished, with a VTO followed by a high-speed pass followed by a VL.
The LII stated that maximum speed was
about l,000km/h, while the OKB claimed
U00km/h (683mph). Both Nos 37 and 38
were flown to Domodedovo for Aviation Day
on 9th July 1967. Later brief trials were flown
from the helicopter cruiser Moskva.
From the Yak-36 were derived the Yak-36M,
Yak-38, Yak-38U and Yak-38M, all of which
saw service with the A-VMF (Soviet naval aviation). This inspired the OKB to produce the
obvious next-generation aircraft, with fully supersonic performance. A design contract was
received in 1975. Yak called the project
Izdeliye (Product) 48, and it received the Service designation Yak-41. Seldom had there
been so many possible aircraft configura-
tions, but at least this time funds were made

available for the necessary main engine. With
much help from CIAM, this was created as the
R-79V-300 by the Soyuz bureau, led after Tumanskii's death in 1973 by Oleg N Favorskii,
and from 1987 by Vasili K Kobchenko. The
R-79 was a two-shaft turbofan with a bypass
ratio of 1.0, with a neat augmentor and a fully
variable final nozzle joined by three wedge
rings which, when rotated, could vector the
nozzle through 63 for STO (short take-off) or
through 95 for VTO (vertical take-off). Ratings were 11,000kg (24,250 Ib) dry, 15,500kg
(34,171 Ib) with maximum augmentation and
14,000kg (30,864 Ib) with maximum augmentation combined with maximum airbleed for
aircraft control. The reason the nozzle vectored through 95 was because, immediately
behind the cockpit, the Yak-41 had two Rybinsk (Novikov) RD-41 lift jets in tandem
whose mean inclination was 85. Their nozzles had limited vectoring but, at this mean
position, in hovering flight they blasted down
and back so the main engine had to balance
the longitudinal component by blasting down
and forwards. Sea-level thrust of each RD-41
was 4,100kg (9,040Ib); thus, total jet lift was
about 22,200kg (48,942 Ib), but in fact the Yak41 was not designed to fly at anything like this
weight. Compared with its predecessors it
was far more sharp-edged and angular. The
wing had a thickness/chord ratio of 4.0 per
cent, and leading-edge taper of 40. The outer
wings, which in fact had slight sweepback on
the trailing edge, folded for stowage on aircraft carriers. The leading edge had a large
curved root extension, outboard of which
was a powerful droop flap. On the trailing
edge were plain flaps and powered ailerons.
The wing had -4 anhedral, and was mounted on top of a wide box-like mid-fuselage,
from which projected a slim nose and cock-
YAKOVLEV E X P E R I M E N T A L JET FIGHTERS

pit ahead of the large variable wedge inlets
which led to ducts which, behind the lift
engines, curved together to feed the main engine. The latter's nozzle was as far forward as
possible. Beside it on each side was a narrow
but deep beam carrying a powered tailplane
and a slightly outward-sloping fin with a small
rudder. Unlike most military Yak jets the
Yak-41 had a conventional tricycle landing
gear. In hovering flight recirculation was minimised by the open lift-bay doors, a hinged
transverse dam across the fuselage ahead of
the main gears, a large almost square door
hydraulically forced down ahead of the main
engine nozzle, and a long horizontal strake
along the sharp bottom edge of the fuselage
on each side. Fuselage tanks held 5,500 litres
(1,210 Imperial gallons) of fuel, and a 2,000
litre (440 Imperial gallon) conformal tank
could be scabbed under the fuselage. Flight
and engine controls were eventually interlinked and digital, the hovering controls comprising twin tandem jets at the wingtips and
a laterally swivelling nozzle under the nose
(which replaced yaw valves at the tip of each
tailcone). An interlinked system provided
automatic firing of the K-36LV seat in any dangerous flight situation. In 1985 it was recognized that such a complex and costly aircraft
ought to have multi-role capability, and the
new designation Yak-41 M was issued for an
aircraft with extremely comprehensive avionics and weapons. Equipment included a
30mm gun and up to 2.6 tonnes (5,732 Ib) of
ordnance on four underwing pylons. The
OKB received funding for a static/fatigue test
aircraft called 48-0, a powerplant test-bed
(48-1) and two flight articles, 48-2 (callsign
75) and 48-3 (callsign 77). Andrei A Sinitsyn
flew '75' as a conventional aircraft at Zhukovskii on 9th March 1987. He first hovered
'77' on 29th December 1989, and in this aircraft he made the first complete transition on
13th June 1990. Maximum speed was
1,850km/h (1,150mph, Mach 1.74) and rate of
climb 15km (49,213ft) per minute. In April
1991 Sinitsyn set 12 FAI class records for rapid
climb with various loads, and as the true designation was classified the FAI were told the
aircraft was the 'Yak-141'. In September 1992
48-2 was flown to the Farnborough airshow,
its side number 75 being replaced by '141'. A
year earlier the CIS Navy had terminated the
whole Yak-41 M programme, and the appearance in the West was a fruitless last attempt
to find a partner to continue the world's only
programme at that time for a supersonic jetlift aircraft. Apart from publicity, all today's
Yakovlev Corporation finally received for all
this work was a limited contract to assist
Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter.
Yak-141 inboard profile
1: Radar
2: Nose gear
3: Front lift jet
4: Rear lift jet
5: GSh-30 gun
6: Retracted main wheel
7: Main gear extended
8: Engine
9: Nozzle drive
10: Nozzle in lift position
11: Control jet
12: Tail control channel
13: Braking parachute

14: Tailplane power unit
15: Lift-bay hatch
Yak-141
Opposite: Yak-41 M with Yak-38M.

This page, top: Yak-141, No 75 on carrier.
215
TYPE 346
Type 346
Purpose: To continue German development
of a supersonic rocket aircraft.
Design Bureau: OKB-2 at Podberez'ye, lead
designer Hans Rosing, in October 1948
replaced by S M Alekseyev.
Inboard profile of 346-3
346A carried by B-29, front and plan

views of any version except 346-3.
346A (346D similar)
216
On 22nd October 1946 a second group of

German design engineers was formed at Podberez'ye to continue development of the DFS346 supersonic research aircraft originally
designed at the DPS (German institute for gliding) at Griesheim near Darmstadt. Models,
some made in Germany, were tested in CAHI
(TsAGI) tunnels, and a North American B-25
was fitted with a mock-up nose to test the
cockpit jettison system. In 1947 (date not discovered) the 346P (P from planer, glider) unpowered version was taken to the test airfield
at Tyoplyi Stan and dropped from under the
starboard wing of a captured B-29 (previously
USAAF 42-6256). Amazingly, the 346P was flown
not by a Russian but by Wolfgang Ziese, who
had previously been chief test pilot of the German Siebel Flugzeugwerke. He had no problems, and brought the glider to a normal
landing. In 1948 (date not discovered) the 3461 high-speed glider version, also known as the
346A, was released from a Tu-4 (B-29 copy) and
similarly flown by Ziese to a normal landing. On
30th September 1949 the 346-2, also known as
the 346D, was dropped from the B-29 and flown
as a glider by Ziese even though it was fitted
with rocket propulsion. No propellant was
loaded, so the aircraft was much lighter than it
would have been with full tanks. Despite this
Ziese landed too fast and, more seriously, the
landing skid failed to extend, resulting in serious damage to both the aircraft and pilot. This
aircraft was repaired, and in October 1950 LII
pilot P I Kasmin flew it at Lukhovitsy, according
to the record making a normal take-off from the
runway despite having only skid landing gear.
Ziese recovered, and on 13th August 1951 he
flew the final aircraft of this programme, the
346-3, and fired the engines. He flew again on
2nd September, but on the third flight, on 14th
September, he lost control. He managed to separate the jettisonable nose from the tumbling
aircraft, but this ended the programme. Later
versions were abandoned. Various 346 parts
were donated to the Moscow Aviation Institute.
Like its American counterpart the Bell XS-1,
the 346 was an almost perfectly streamlined
body with mid-mounted wings. Unlike the XS1, it had a prone pilot position, skid landing
gear, swept wings and an extremely squat vertical tail with the tailplane on top. Construction
was almost wholly flush-riveted light alloy. The
wings had NACA-012 profile (12 per cent thick)
and a sweep angle of 45 at the /4-chord line.
Each wing had two shallow fences from the
TYPE 346
leading edge to the plain flap. At the tips were
inverse-tapered two-section ailerons, the inner
sections being locked at high airspeeds. The
elevators were similar in principle. On the 346P
the tailplane, with !4-chord sweep of 35, was
fixed and surmounted by a small fixed fin.
On the 346-2 and -3 the tailplane was driven
by an irreversible power unit over the range
-2 407+2. The fuselage was of circular section, with the entire nose arranged to slide
forward for pilot entry and to jettison in emergency. The pilot lay on his stomach looking
ahead through the Plexiglas nosecap, through
which protruded the long instrumentation
boom. Bottled gas pressure operated the flaps
and retracted the skid into a ventral recess
which, except for the 346P, could be faired over
with twin doors. Under the tail was a small steel
bumper. Unlike its predecessors, the 346-3
could be fitted with a curved skid with a levered
shock strut hinged under each outer wing.
These were jettisoned after take-off. The
propulsion system was the Walter HWK 109509C, called ZhRD-109-510 in the USSR. This
had two superimposed thrust chambers, one
which fired continuously whenever the system
was in operation, and a larger chamber used
only for take-off or for brief periods when maximum thrust was needed. The cruise chamber
was rated at sea level at 300kg (661 Ib), and the
main chamber at 1,700kg (3,7481b). The combined thrust at high altitude was about 2,250kg
(4,960 Ib). Immediately behind the jettisonable
nose section was a tank of concentrated hydrogen peroxide (called T-Stoff in Germany)
while in the centre fuselage were interconnected tanks of methanol/hydrazine hydrate
(C-Stoff). German turbopumps running on calcium permanganate fed the highly reactive fluids to the thrust chambers, where ignition was
hypergolic (instantaneous).
Probably as much effort went into the 346
programme as the Americans expended on the
XS-1 or D-558-II, but there was no comparison
in what the programmes achieved. There is no
obvious reason why these challenging aircraft,
designed for Mach 2, should simply have been
abandoned without even reaching Mach 1.
Dimensions
Span
9m
Length
(346-3, nose to engine nozzles) 13.447 m
(instrument boom to tailplanes) 15.987 m
14.87nf
Wing area (net)
Opposite page, top: B-25

with 346 cockpit capsule.
Opposite page: 346P.
Above: 346-2 (346D)

nose open showing pilot
couch.
Right: Looking down into
open nose.
Below: Three views of
346-2 on B-29.
29 ft 6% in
44 ft IK in
52 ft 33A in
160ft 2
Weights (346-3)
Empty
3,180kg
7,01 lib
Propellants
1,900kg
4,1891b
Loaded
5,230kg
ll,5301b
Performance
Max speed, intended
2,127 km/h
in a 2 min full-power burn at high altitude
1,322 mph (Mach 2)
No other data.
217
EF 126
EF 126
Purpose: Experimental ground-attack
aircraft.
Design Bureau: OKB-1, formed of German
engineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade,
at Podberez'ye.
EF126
In November 1944 beleaguered German design teams worked round the clock with
'crash' programmes intended to meet an RLM
(Reich Air Ministry) specification for a miniature fighter designed to produce effective lastditch defence. At the Junkers company the
most important proposal was the EF (Entwicklungs Flugzeug, development aircraft)
126, code-named Elli. This was to be a small
fighter powered by one of the Argus pulsejets
already in mass-production for the Fi 103 flying
bomb. Messerschmitt already had such an aircraft, the Me 328, powered by two of these
units, testing of which showed that the violent
vibration of the engines had a severe effect on
the airframe and pilot. The EF 126 was smaller, almost a copy of the FilOSR Reichenberg,
the piloted version of the flying bomb. In late
1944 it was decided that, because of poor
pulsejet performance at altitude, the mission
should be changed to ground attack. Despite
frantic work little hardware appeared before
Germany collapsed. A German three-view has
been found bearing the date 9th May 1945, the
day after the final surrender ! Moreover, the
span quoted (6.35m) is different from that
given in other early-May documents, showing
that the design was still fluid. Indicative of the
panic environment, the data panel on this
drawing gives the length as 8.9m while the
drawing itself gives the same length as that
below ! Despite this, and the primitive nature
of the project, the EF 126 was snapped up by
the Russians. In October 1945 the Soviet MAP
(ministry of aviation industry) organised the
Junkers workers into an EF 126 cell at Dessau,
headed by Prof Brunolf Baade. The intention
was that this group would be moved to the
USSR, but the EF 126 cell remained at Dessau
while the much larger group working on jet
bombers formed OKB-1 at Podberez'ye (see
next entries). By January 1946 an engineering
mockup had been built and parts for five aircraft produced. The EF 126 VI (first prototype)
was ready in May 1946, and flight testing
opened on 12th May with the VI towed as a
glider behind a Ju 88. The pilot was Mathis and
the tug pilot Schreiber. The EF 126 was cast off
and made a normal landing. However, on 21st
May Mathis was killed, after he had misjudged
his glide approach, bounced hard on the rear
skid, rolled to the right and cartwheeled. MAP
granted permission for the resumption of testTop.- EF 126 in wind tunnel.
218
EF 1 2 6 / E F 131
ing in July, after modification of the leading
edge. The new pilot, Huelge, was pleased by
the modified aircraft, which by this time was
making rocket take-offs from a ramp. The new
pulsejet engine caused problems, take-off
rockets ran out, and an MAP commission
headed by A S Yakovlev rejected the EF 126 as
an operational vehicle because of 'weak armament, absence of armour and insufficient
fuel...' It gave permission for work to continue
to help develop the engine, ramp launch and
skid landing. In September 1946 V2, V3 and V4
were sent to LII (today called Zhukovskii), supported by 18 specialists headed by Ing. Bessel.
Further delays were caused by design
changes, but gliding flights after a tow by Ju 88
resumed with V5 on 16th March 1947. The
MAP directive that three aircraft should take
part in the Tushino display came to nothing,
but by the end of the year V3 and V5 had made
12 short flights, five of them under power. The
Jumo 226 engine made 44 test flights slung
under a Ju 88, but predictably the whole programme was cancelled at the start of 1948.
The EF126 resembled the FilOS flying bomb

in many respects, except that instead of a warhead the nose contained the cockpit, the
wings had 3 dihedral (and like some flying
bombs were made of wood) and housed fuel
tanks, and skid landing gear was fitted (the
original Junkers drawings showed retractable
tricycle gear). One drawing shows a single
large retractable skid, but the prototypes had
two small skids in tandem. The wing was fitted
with pneumatically driven flaps, and a braking
parachute was housed in the rear fuselage.
The original intention was to have twin fins. EF
126 VI was fitted with the standard flyingbomb engine, the Argus 109-014 rated at 350kg
(772 Ib) thrust at sea level. All subsequent aircraft had the 109-044, which Junkers took over
as the Jumo 226, rated at 500kg (1,102 Ib). Despite prolonged testing this suffered from difficult ignition, poor combustion and dangerous
fires. Three tanks housed 1,320 litres (290 Imperial gallons) of fuel, fed by air pressure.
Ramp take-off was by two solid motors each
with an impulse of 12,000kg-seconds. Arma-
ment comprised two MG 151/20, each with

180 rounds, plus an underwing load of two AB
250 containers, each housing 108 SD2 'butterfly bombs', or 12 Panzerblitz hollow-charge
bomblets.
A good idea for a last-ditch weapon was unlikely to survive in the post-war era of rapid
technical development.
airfield then called Stakhanovo (today at LII

Zhukovskii) where on or about 23rd May 1947
it was briefly flight tested by Flugkapitan Paul
Julge. According to legend, he was never allowed enough fuel to reach 'the West'. By this
time more advanced aircraft and engines
were being developed in the Soviet Union,
and the EF 131 spent long periods on the
ground. MAP Directive 207ss of 15th April
1947 had demanded that 'two prototype EF131 with six RD-10 engines to take part in the
August Tushino display...' but this was impossible to achieve. Eventually the first aircraft was again made airworthy and flown
to Moscow's other experimental airfield,
Tyopliy Stan. On 21st June 1948 the order
was given to stop EF 131 work. This was
because it had been overtaken by the much
better Type 140.
The EF 131 was an impressive-looking jet
bomber, characterised by its swept-forward
wing. To postpone the rapid increase in drag
as Mach number exceeds about 0.75 German
aerodynamicists had from 1935 studied
wings swept either backwards or forwards.
The FSW (forward-swept wing) appeared to
offer important aeroelastic advantages, but
because such wings diverge under increasing
aerodynamic load they are structurally very
difficult. The Ju 287 VI avoided this problem
by being a slow-speed aircraft, but the problem was met head-on by the 131 and 140, and
also by the Tsybin LL-3 (which see). The first
structurally satisfactory FSW was that of the

Grumman X-29, almost 40 years later, and a
more advanced FSW is seen in today's
Sukhoi S-37 (which see). Thus, the FSW of
the EF 131 can be seen to have been an enormous challenge. Aerodynamically it was directly derived from that of the wartime Ju 287,
with considerable dihedral and a leading
edge swept forward at 19 50'. It was fitted
with slats at the wing roots, slotted flaps and
outboard ailerons. It was also fitted with multiple spoiler/airbrakes (items 18 in the detailed drawing overleaf) and a total of eight
shallow fences (in the drawing marked QV).
Because of the limited (900kg, l,9841b) thrust
of the Junkers Jumo 004B engines these were
arranged in groups of three on each underwing pylon. By late 1947 this engine was in
limited production at Kazan as the RD-10, and
because they were considered superior to
the German originals the engines actually installed were RD-lOs. The crew numbered
three, and to save weight armour was omitted. A neat tricycle landing gear was fitted, the
main tanks occupied the top of the fuselage,
a braking parachute occupied a box under
the tail, and at the end of the fuselage was a
remotely sighted FA15 barbette with superimposed MG 131 guns as fitted to some
wartime aircraft such as the Ju 388.
The FSW and primitive engines made this
an unattractive aircraft.
Dimensions (V5)
Span
Length
(fuselage only)
Wing area
6.65m
8.5m
7.8m
8.9 nf
21 ft 9% in
27 ft 10% in
25 ft 7 in
95.8ft2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
1,100kg
2,800 kg
2,425 Ib
6,173 Ib
780km/h
680 km/h
485 mph
423 mph
23min
45min
(186 miles)
(2 17 miles)
Performance
Maximum speed (clean)
(external load)
Range/endurance
(full power) 300 km
(60% power) 350 km
EF 131
Purpose: To improve a German design for a
jet bomber.
engineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade,
at Podberez'ye.
From late 1944 the Red Army overran many
sites where German aircraft engineers had
been working on jet aircraft and engines. The
largest group had been in the employ of the
vast Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke in
the Dessau area and at Brandis near Leipzig.
At Brandis the principal project had been the
Ju 287 jet bomber. Having flown the Ju 287 VI
(a primitive proof-of-concept vehicle incorporating parts of other aircraft) on 16th August 1944, work had gone ahead rapidly on
the definitive Ju 287 V2, to be powered by two
triple engine pods, but the Soviet forces overran Brandis airfield before this could fly. This
work was clearly of intense interest, and with
the aid of a large team of ex-Junkers engineers, who were prisoners, the programme
was continued with all possible speed. The
Ju 287 V2 stage was skipped, and parts of this
aircraft were used to speed the construction
of the next-generation EF 131 (Entwicklungs
Flugzeug, meaning research aircraft). This
was built at Dessau, dismantled, and, together with many of the German engineers
and test pilots, taken by train to Moscow.
As explained in the next entry, they formed
OKB-1. Final assembly took place at the test
219
EF 131
EF131
Dimensions
Span
Wing area
19.4m
19.7m
59.1 nf
63 ft 7% in
64 ft Th in
636ft 2
Weights
Empty about
Loaded about
12 tonnes
20 tonnes
26,455 Ib
44,090 Ib
850 km/h
528 mph
Performance
Maximum speed
No other firm figures.
Centre: Page from EF 131 maintenance manual,

Fig. 10 'covers and flaps'.
Bottom: EF 131 (the only known photograph,
enlarged from distant background).
220
TYPE 140
Type 140
Purpose: To improve a German design for a
jet bomber.
engineers led by Dipl-Ing Brunolf Baade
(later replaced by S M Alekseyev),
at Podberez'ye.
The EF 140 was begun as a private venture by
Baade's team, who had faith in their forwardswept designs. The weak feature was obviously the need to use six primitive engines,
and work went ahead rapidly to replace these
by one of the newer engines which by 1947
were available. These were not only much
more powerful, so that the aircraft could become twin-engined, but also had better fuel
economy and much longer and more reliable
life. The greater power available meant that
previous compromises were no longer necessary, and the German team really felt they
had a good jet bomber at last. Construction
was speeded by using major parts of the second EF 131, so that the first of two EF 140 prototypes began its flight-test programme at
Tyopliy Stan on 20th September 1948. The
flight report described all aspects of the flight
as 'normal'. Previously, in May 1948, it has
been surmised (because of selection of the
IL-28 as a production bomber and rejection of
the Tupolev Type 78R reconnaissance aircraft) that the EF 131 should be developed as
the 140R purely for reconnaissance. This was
countermanded in August 1948 by a SovMin
decree that the aircraft should be developed
as the 140B/R, capable of flying either bomber
or reconnaissance missions. By this time the
morale of the Germans was poor. They were
surrounded by 'informers', and still had the
status of prisoners. In October 1948 Alekseyev, whose own OKB had been closed, was
appointed Chief Designer of OKB-1. He set
about improving things. He drafted in 50 Soviet engineers, developed a good relationship
with Baade, the informers' room was taken
by the factory chief controller, the control
post between Podberez'ye village and Kimry
Dimensions (Type 140)

Span
Length
Wing area
19.4m
19.8m
59.1 nf
63ft7y 4 in
64 ft m in
636ft 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
11,900kg
23 tonnes
26,235 Ib
50,705 Ib
Performance
Max speed (measured)
Range
904km/h
2,000km
562 mph
1,242 miles
was removed, and the Germans were given a

better status. As military personnel at Tyopliy
Stan objected to the Germans being there,
the flight-test programme was moved to the
airfield at Borki, which was in any case nearer. The test programme of the 140R (the Germanic prefix 'EF' tended to be dropped) was
opened on 12th October 1949, the pilot being
I Ye Fyodorov. It flew again on the following
day, but as speed built up wing flutter was experienced. The 140R spent the next nine
months shuttling between the factory and the
airfield. In July 1950 the second prototype, in
B/R configuration, was well advanced in
ground testing, and about to fly, when the entire programme was terminated.
The 140 differed from the EF 131 principally in having only two engines, of new types.
These engines were the imported RollsRoyce Nene, the Soviet derivative known as
the VK-1, and the all-Soviet Mikulin AM-01,
also known as the AM-TKRD-1. One Russian
account states that the 140 first flew with the
Mikulin axial engines, experienced problems,
was re-engined with VK-1 centrifugal engines

and was then fitted with wingtip tanks. Photographs show that flight testing was carried
out with Nene or VK-1 engines without tip
tanks and with the Mikulin engines with tip
tanks. Moreover, the British centrifugal engine was available in 1947, before the Mikulin
engine was cleared for use as sole propulsion
(though it had flown under a Tu-2). Despite
this, the Soviet record states that on the first
flight the engines were the AM-TKRD-1, each
rated at 3,300kg (7,275 Ib). Development of jet
fighters was judged to have made the EF 131
armament inadequate, and it was replaced
by the outstanding remotely-controlled electrically driven turret with twin NS-23 cannon
developed for Tupolev heavy bombers. The
140 was armed with two of these turrets, one
behind the pressure cabin and the other
under the rear fuselage. To share the workload a fourth crew-member was added, the
complement now comprising the pilot at left
front with the navigator/bombardier on his
right, the dorsal gunner facing aft behind the
140 with Nene engines
Right: 140 with Nene engines.
221
TYPE 140
pilot and the radio operator behind the navigator and controlling the ventral turret. The
optical sighting was derived from that of the
Tu-4, and in emergency either gunner could
manage both turrets. Full armour was restored. The capacious bomb bay had electrically driven doors and could accommodate
various loads up to 4,500kg (9,921 Ib). The
fuel system was completely redesigned, with
tanks along the top of the fuselage. The 140
suffered from malfunction of the fuel-metering unit on the AM-TKRD-01 engines, which
caused engine speed to fluctuate erratically
in a way that the pilot could not control, and
which could lead to dangerously asymmetric
power. After Flight 7 the engines were
changed, and OKB-1 flight testing was completed on 24th May 1949.
Type 140R
To achieve the necessary range, this aircraft
was (the Soviet record states) fitted with
'newer, more economical' VK-1 engines derived by V Ya Klimov from the Rolls-Royce
Nene, even though these were rated at only
2,700kg (5,952 Ib). The span was increased,
and fixed tanks were added on the wingtips,
increasing internal fuel capacity to 14,000
litres (3,080 Imperial gallons). The former
bomb bay was redesigned to carry a wide assortment of reconnaissance cameras, as well
as high-power flares and flash bombs in the
forward bay and in the fuselage tail.
Type 140B/R
Never completed, this aircraft was intended
to have an improved fire control system, the
crew reduced to three, and to have a range of

3,000km (1,864 miles) at 12,000m (39,370ft)
carrying 1.5 tonnes (3,3071b) of bombs and
9,400 litres (2,068 Imperial gallons) of fuel.
Always handicapped politically by their ancestry, these aircraft were merely an insurance against failure of the first Soviet jet
bombers such as Ilyushin's IL-22 and Tupolev's
Tu-12. They were finally killed by inability to
solve the structural problems of the forwardswept wing.
Dimensions (Type 140R)

Span
Length
Wing area
21.9m
19.8m
59.1 nf
Weights
Not recorded
Performance
Max speed (measured)
866km/h
Range at a cruising altitude
of 14, 100m (46,260ft)
3,600 km
Left: 140B/RwithAM-01 engines.
140B/RwithAM-01 engines
222
71 ft 1014 in
64 ft 11)4 in
636ft 2
538mph
2,237 miles
TYPE 150
Type 150
Purpose: Experimental jet bomber.
Design Bureau: OKB-1, Podberez'ye and
later at Kimry, General Director from
October 1948 S M Alekseyev.
The first official history of OKB-1 to be published (in Kryl'ya Rodiny for December 1987,
written by I Sultanov) stated that it was led
by Alekseyev, whose own OKB had been
closed, and that this aircraft was 'designed in
close collaboration with CAHI (TsAGI), the
leading experts on aerodynamics and structures being V N Belyayev, AI Makarevskii,
G P Svishchev and S A Khristianovich'. At the
end it briefly noted that 'a group from Germany, led by B Baade, participated...' It
would have been more accurate to explain
that OKB-1 was specifically formed on 22nd
October 1946 in order to put to use several
hundred German design engineers, led by
Prof Brunolf Baade and Hans Wocke, who
had been forcibly taken with their families to
a location 120km east of Moscow where they
were put to work in a single large office block.
For the first three years they were fully occupied on the Types 131 and 140 described previously. However, mainly because of doubts
that the forward-swept wing would ever be
made to work, even before they left Germany

they had completed preliminary drawings for
a bomber of similar size but with a conventional backswept wing. By 1948 this had become an official OKB-1 project, called 150.
The original Chief Designer was P N Obrubov,
but Alekseyev took his place when he arrived.
Workers were increasingly transferred to the
150, which grew in size and weight from the
original 25 tonnes to produce a bomber intermediate between the IL-28 and Tu-16. The
brief specification issued by the WS called
for a take-off weight between 38 and 47
tonnes, a maximum speed rising from 790
km/h at sea level to 970km/h at 5km, a service
ceiling of 12.5km and a range varying with
bomb load from 1,500 to 4,500km (932 to
2,796 miles). Only a single flight article was
funded, and this had to wait a year for its engines. At last it was flown by Ya I Vernikov on
14th May 1951. On Flight 16 on 9th May 1952
the aircraft stalled on the landing approach,
and though the aircraft was marginally repairable nobody bothered, because of the
clearly greater potential of the Tu-88 (prototype Tu-16). The dice were in any case loaded
against a German-designed aircraft. In late
1953 Baade and most of the Germans re-
turned to their own country, where in Dresden they formed a company called VEB which
used the Type 150 as the [highly unsuitable]
basis for the BB-152 passenger airliner.
A modern all-metal aircraft, the 150 had a
shoulder-high wing with a fixed leading edge
swept at 35. As this wing had hardly any taper
the tips were extraordinarily broad, leaving
plenty of room for slim fairings housing the retracted tip landing gears. The concept of tandem centreline landing gears with small
wheels at the wingtips had been evaluated
with Alekseyev's own I-215D. At rest the wing
had anhedral of-4, reduced to about -1 20'
in flight. Each wing had two shallow fences
from the leading edge to the slotted flap. Outboard were three-part ailerons. The fuselage
was of circular section, tapering slightly aft of
the wing to oval. Fixed seats were provided in
the pressurized forward section for two pilots,
a navigator/bombardier and a radio operator
who also had periscopic control of a dorsal
turret with two NR-23 cannon. Under the floor
was the RPB-4 navigation/bombing radar,
with twin landing lamps recessed in the front.
Behind this was the steerable twin-wheel
nose gear. Next came the large bomb bay,
2.65m (8ft Sin) wide and high and 7m (23ft)
223
TYPE 150
long, with a load limit of 6 tonnes (13,228 Ib).
Next came the rear twin-wheel truck, which
on take-off could be suddenly shortened to tilt
the aircraft 3 30' nose-up for a clean liftoff.
The large fin was swept at 45, with a two-part
rudder and carrying on top the 45-swept
tailplane and three-part elevators with dihedral of 8. In the tail was a rear gunner with a
turret mounting two NR-23 cannon. Under
each wing was a forward-swept pylon carrying a Lyul'ka AL-5 turbojet rated at 4,600kg
(lO.HOlb). A total of 35,875 litres (7,892 Imperial gallons) of fuel was housed in eight
cells along the upper part of the fuselage, and
additional tanks could be carried in the bomb
bay. On each side of the rear fuselage was a
door-type airbrake. Like almost everything
else these surfaces were operated electrically, the high-power duplicated DC system including an emergency drop-out windmill
generator. Each flight-control surface was operated by a high-speed rotary screwjack.
Though flight testing revealed some buffeting and vibration, especially at full power at
high altitude, the numerous innovations introduced on this aircraft worked well. Nevertheless, it would have been politically
undesirable for what was essentially a German aircraft to be accepted for production.
Thus, hitting the ground short of the runway
was convenient.
Dimensions
Span
Wing area
24.1m
26. 74 m
125m 2
Weights
Empty
Loaded
23,064kg
54
tonnes
79 ft 1 in
87 ft 8% in
1,346ft 2
50,84715
119,00015
Performance
Maximum speed
at sea level,
850 km/h
528 mph
at 10 km (32,808 ft)
930 km/h
578 mph
Service ceiling about
13km
42,650ft
No other data, except that design range (see a5ove) was exceeded.
224
Three views of 150.
SOVIET X-PLANES IN COLOUR
Soviet X-Planes
in colour
Top.Mikoyan SM-12/1
Centre left: Mikoyan SM-12/3
Centre right: Mikoyan SM-12PMU
Bottom: Mikoyan SM-12PM
225
SOVIET X-PLANES
Top: Mikoyan Ye-4 with RD-9I engine

Centre: Mikoyan Ye-2A
Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-5

Top: Mikoyan I-3U in late 1956.
Bottom: Mikoyan I-7U.
226
227
SOVIET X-PLANES
228
Top: Mikoyan Ye-152/A with

K-9 missiles.
Right and bottom: Two views of the
Mikoyan Ye-152P.

Top and centre: Two views of the
Mikoyan Ye-8/2.
Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-50/3.
229
SOVIET X-PLANES
230
Top and centre: Two views of the

MiG-23-01 ('23-01').
Bottom: Mikoyan '105-11' at Monino.

Top: Mikoyan Ye-152M (Ye-166)
record version at Monino.
Centre.MiG-211/1 'Analog'.
Bottom: MiG-21PD ('23-31').
231
SOVIET X-PLANES
232
Top: One of the Myasischev M-17 prototypes

at Monino
Above, right and below: Three views of the
Myasischev M-55.
Opposite page: Three views of the Mikoyan 'I-44'.
233
SOVIET X - P L A N E S
234
SOVIET X - P L A N E S IN C O L O U R
Top: Sukhoi T6-1 test-bed at Monino.

Centre.Sukhoi T6-1.
Bottom: Sukhoi T10-1.

Top and centre left: Two views of the
Myasischev VM-T.
Centre left and bottom: Two views of
the Sukhoi T-4 ('101').
235
SOVIET X-PLANES
Top: Sukhoi S-22I test-bed.

Centre left: Sukhoi T10-3.

Top and centre: Two views of the Sukhoi P-42 record aircraft.
Centre right: Sukhoi T10-24.

Bottom: Sukhoi T10-20 record version at Khodynka.
236
Bottom left and right: Two views of the Sukhoi Su-27UB-PS test-bed.
237
SOVIET X-PLANES
238
Three views of the Sukhoi S-37,

the lower two taken at the
MAKS-99 air show. ,

Top: Sukhoi Su-37 (T10M-11).
Bottom: Sukhoi Su-37 'Berkut'.
239
SOVIET X-PLANES
Top: Tupolev Tu-155 test-bed

at Zhukovskii.
Cen/re: YakovlevYak-141 at Khodynka.
Bottom: YakovlevYak-141 second
prototype.
We hope that you have enjoyed this book . .

Midland Publishing book titles are carefully
edited and designed by an experienced and
enthusiastic team of specialists. A catalogue
detailing our aviation publishing programme
is available upon request from the address on
page two.
240
Our associate company, Midland Counties

Publications, offers an exceptionally wide
range of aviation, railway, spaceflight, naval,
military, astronomy and transport books and
videos, for purchase by mail-order and delivery around the world.
To order further copies of this book, or to request a copy of the appropriate mail-order
catalogue, write, telephone or fax to:
Midland Counties Publications
Unit 3 Maizefield, Hinckley, Leics, LE10 1YF
Tel: 01455 233 747 Fax: 01455 233 737

Soviet X Planes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soviet X Planes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston OBE FRAeS

Worldwide distribution (except North America):

Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 with GK

Aviatsiya Dal'nevo Deistviya

NKVD Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del

Airframe and Engine Design Bureaux

Russian Language and Transliteration

pounds per square foot - force or pressure,

Design and Illustration considerations

or over 70 years from 1918 the world's

At the same time, the Soviet Union was far

certain non-starter, today Ivan at his modern

Sukhoi S-37 experimental fighter.

I-211 into flight test on 13th October 1947.

fighters were copies of the Me 262.) At closure

I-218 inboard profile

Junkers) engineers to produce the Type 150,

the wing, was a Dobrynin VM-251 (in effect,

Weights (unknown except)

Above: I-218 model.

Left: Alekseyev's ground-attack aircraft projects, from the top -I-218-IB,

and a skid under the trailing edge.

Two views of the LEM-2, OKA-33.

Front and side views of KT assembled on tank.

was ready for test in early 1942. The selected

steeply, lower the flaps and then, when about

Model of the 1947 jet fighter project.

Dimensions (data 194 7)

The E-153 glider.

Original scheme for M, 1947

Construction of this research aircraft must

Three photographs of the An-181

A R K H A N G E L S K I Y BSH/M-V B A R T I N I S T A L ' - G , E l A N D STAL'-S

the engine of the IL-2 Sturmovik blocked off

when the Ilyushin suffered heavy attrition

Bartini Stal'-6, El, and StaP 8

own idea). The fuselage was likewise based

Each leading edge was attached to the upper

Maximum rate of climb

Stal'-8 model in tunnel.

BARTINI STAL'-G, AND STAL'-J

unsuitable for passengers but excellent for

This was just what the fuselage did not

cramped cross-section with sides sloping in

Left: Two views of Stal'-7.

by numerous engineers, including deputy

very long chord, and cigar-like floats carrying

Above: Three-view of WA-14M2 with retractable landing gear.

This aircraft was essentially a straightforward low-wing monoplane, of fighter-like

The engine was mounted on the nose on a

DB-LK, plan view showing top and underside

Purpose: The initials stood for 'long-range

ation was ended by the appointment by GK

gen 387 profile over the supposed 'bat-like'

Four views of DB-LK, one showing landing-gear

B E L Y A Y E V FBI / B E L Y A Y E V 370, EOI

N Ye Leont'yev - could simultaneously have

No descriptive material has come to light

Belyayev 370, EOI

The EOI had the cockpit in the nose, almost

housed in a recess immediately ahead of the

On take-off and landing

Model of the final EOI configuration.

done at CAHI, supervised by G S Byushgens.